PRIVATE BUSINESS

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords] (By Order)
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)
	Manchester City Council Bill  [ Lords ] (By Order)
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)
	 Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 May.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Flood Prevention

Mark Harper: What the Environment Agency's budget for flood prevention is for 2008-09.

Phil Woolas: Total Government funding for England in 2008-09 is £650 million, of which £559 million is flood defence grant in aid disbursed by the Environment Agency and including local authority and internal drainage board capital projects. The Environment Agency flood defence budget includes a further £20.1 million funded from other sources, and there is a planned local levy programme of around £38 million.

Mark Harper: As the Minister will know, those who ask for works to be carried out locally are always told that the budget is under pressure, but the Environment Agency is still able to find the funds to sponsor a flood impact study conducted by Cranfield university. My constituent Mr. Jeremy Chamberlayne put it well when he said:
	"This everlasting reviewing and impact studying is beginning to get up my nose! It's action we want and I seriously fear that the Environment Agency is incapable of delivering it".
	What can the Minister tell us today to change my constituent's mind?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. I hear people express that sentiment, but it is based on a misunderstanding. The flood defence capital projects and maintenance projects have been enhanced month on month for eight or nine years. Of course the Environment Agency, as a responsible body, seeks to learn more about flood risk—particularly in the light of the lessons learned from surface as opposed to river flooding, which is one of the aspects recognised in the Pitt review.
	I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. Action certainly is being taken, and if he visits the Environment Agency I am sure that its representatives will show him the projects.

Andrew Robathan: While we are on the subject of misunderstandings and the Environment Agency, may I ask whether the Minister saw a letter in  The Daily Telegraph on, I think, Monday or Tuesday from the agency's chief executive, Lady Young? In that letter, she contradicted "Dod's Parliamentary Companion" by saying that she was not a Labour peer, which according to "Dod's" she has been for many years. Can the Minister clear that up for us?

Phil Woolas: I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, for not reading  The Daily Telegraph on Monday, Tuesday or indeed any other day. I do the crossword—it runs in my family—and it is a fine newspaper, but I do not think that this is really a matter for me. I believe that you would pull me up if I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

Anne McIntosh: Last year, the Prime Minister said:
	"In addition to that"
	—the money allocated—
	"under the Bellwin scheme, it will be open to local authorities to be reimbursed for the additional costs that they face, and I know that those requests will be looked at sympathetically."—[ Official Report, 27 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 325.]
	In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), and indeed in the whole of Gloucestershire, there is a £16 million black hole that must be filled by the council. Moreover, I have been informed by the leader of Gloucestershire county council that it has received no new money to reduce the risk of flooding in the county. Can the Minister tell us why the Secretary of State's constituency and other urban constituencies receive money for flood defences, while all that rural constituencies such as mine and my hon. Friend's are given is money for flood impact and feasibility studies?

Phil Woolas: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I do not accept that the Government, through either local authorities or the Environment Agency, do not spend money in rural areas. That is simply not the case.
	The hon. Lady referred to Gloucestershire county council. I believe the constituency of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) is in Gloucestershire. The Environment Agency provides moneys for flood defences, and, as I think most local authorities recognise, the Bellwin scheme has worked very well. The Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), has done a terrific job with that scheme, and with the solidarity fund.
	I do not accept the idea that we give money to urban areas but not to rural areas. I suspect that there is a bit of 1 May behind that question, and I think it is unfair.

Renewable Electricity Generation

John Barrett: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on the development of renewable forms of electricity generation.

Hilary Benn: I regularly discuss a range of issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, including the importance of renewable energy in reducing CO2 emissions.

John Barrett: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware that the Government's performance and innovation unit has said:
	"A sustained programme of investment in currently proposed nuclear power plants could adversely affect the development of smaller scale technology."
	When will his and other Departments work together to make sure that renewables are given a fair chance?

Hilary Benn: In fairness, I think the hon. Gentleman would recognise that since the renewables obligation was introduced in 2002, renewable generation in this country has nearly trebled in size. That is a practical example of change taking place. We have recently consulted on the nature of the renewables obligation certificates, and we will introduce double ROCs, which will encourage some of the newer technologies. We are, of course, a leading country in the world for investment in offshore wind power, and the Government are very committed to a transformation in the investment in renewables. The simple reason why we are where we are is that we had North sea oil and gas. I think that the whole House recognises that, but we are committed to change, and the policies that we are putting in place will ensure that it happens.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am at today's news that Shell is pulling out of the London Array, which will be the UK's biggest offshore wind farm. When it is ever suggested that there should be a windfall tax on the vast profits of energy companies, they say that they need the money to invest in new technologies. In view of Shell's announcement today, should that policy be revisited by the Government?

Hilary Benn: I have to say that I would describe the news that Shell wishes to sell its stake as very disappointing, and that many people would want to understand why that was the case, especially in a week in which the company has announced record profits. What I would say on the Government's part is that we have given, and will continue to give, full support to this important project, which, when completed, will produce enough electricity to power about one in four homes in Greater London.

Brian Binley: The Secretary of State will know that planning applications for wind turbines on industrial estates are beginning to show themselves. I know of one for a 147 m tower on an area containing 161 businesses and covering 8,000 sq ft. Clearly there must be some limit on the number of wind turbines on industrial estates —[Interruption.] Clearly there must be some limit. What is that limit? How does that impact on fair trading, given the recognition that we need to ensure that access to alternative power sources is available to all industry?

Hilary Benn: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I am comparing the two questions that we have just heard—is that we cannot have it both ways; there are choices to be made about how we generate our energy. It is for the planning authorities to take decisions about individual applications, but if we talk to renewable energy companies, including those involved in wind power, they will tell us that in the UK, the regulatory regime is not a big obstacle as far as financial incentive is concerned; they will tell us that the obstacle is the planning system. We need to examine carefully, in the end, the decisions made at local level on whether permission is given or not, because those decisions will have a huge impact on the speed with which we are able significantly to increase our renewable energy generation.

Peter Soulsby: I suspect that the Secretary of State may share the disappointment felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government felt it necessary yesterday to vote against new clause 4 of the Energy Bill, which would have paved the way for the introduction of renewable energy tariffs. Will he assure the House that he will hold discussions with ministerial colleagues to find alternative ways of ensuring that tariffs are introduced that will enable and encourage decentralised renewable energy generation?

Hilary Benn: I am very committed, as I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is, to doing precisely that. That is why the Minister for Energy announced a couple of months ago that, as part of the renewable energy strategy, one of the things on which we will consult in the summer, because we are determined to make progress, is, indeed, feed-in tariffs for microgeneration. One has only to look at a country such as Germany to see the impact that such a system has had. We will examine that as part of the strategy, and we will publish our proposals in due course.

Bill Wiggin: I am listening to the Government describing us as leading on offshore wind power, yet Shell is pulling out of key offshore wind farm projects in this morning's newspapers. When we look further at the Government's biomass co-firing feedstocks, we find that a fifth of those are coming from palm oil products, which are causing deforestation and loss of habitat for the orang-utan. We know that things are not being sustainably sourced, and we know that we will not even be close to meeting the EU target of 20 per cent. by 2020 if we lose wind farms and Shell's investment. I do not think that the Minister's response that it is all very disappointing is good enough. Will he please see what he can do to try to meet these targets, which the whole House would support?

Hilary Benn: The Government are responsible for many things, but the decision that Shell has taken is not one of them. Shell made it clear in its statement that the regulatory framework that the Government have set is not the reason for its decision. I said in answer to the earlier question that many people would like to know the reason because Shell has spoken previously about its commitment to investment in renewables, and this is an important test. I hope that the project will be sustained.
	On offshore wind, 3.3 GW already have permission. Round 2 should deliver another 7 GW. The Government want a further major expansion up to 25 GW, so we are serious about this.
	On biofuels, Ed Gallagher is carrying out the review. As far as the climate is concerned, there are good biofuels and bad biofuels, and we have to be able to distinguish between the two. The review will be important, but we need to encourage the right kind of biofuels. We also need to encourage the second generation of biofuels, and we are determined to do that.

Jim Sheridan: When my right hon. Friend meets the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, will he remind him that it is profoundly wrong for politicians or political parties who advocate renewable energy to then deny applications involving that technology? That is the case with the nimby Scottish National party Administration in Scotland.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I made the same point a moment ago. We have a choice to make. It is instructive to compare and contrast the policies advocated from the Opposition Benches with the decisions taken by the representatives of those same political parties when it comes to individual planning applications. In the end, we have to be held to account for our decisions.

Global Food Prices

Kerry McCarthy: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the effects of the rise in global food prices.

Hilary Benn: With ministerial colleagues, I attended the food summit called by the Prime Minister on 22 April 2008. We discussed the causes and the consequences of the rise in food prices, especially for developing countries.

Kerry McCarthy: Much of the debate on this issue is focused on the impact of biofuels, but does my right hon. Friend accept that increased meat and dairy consumption, especially in countries such as China and India as they become more prosperous and adopt a western diet, is also a problem? Does he also agree that the introduction of ever more industrialised and intensive farming methods—trying to squeeze more meat or milk out of every animal and more animals into every acre—is not the answer?

Hilary Benn: There are several factors behind the recent rise in prices, such as the drought, especially in Australia, although it should produce much more wheat this year; the demand for meat and dairy products that is a result of growing prosperity in the developing world; the existing trade restrictions; and the growth in input prices. The rise in oil prices has a huge impact on fertiliser costs. First, the agricultural industry across the world, including in the UK, has to play its part in contributing to the reduction of carbon emissions. The second priority is to ensure that we protect those least able to deal with the consequence of rising food prices, both abroad and here in the UK.
	The one bit of encouraging news is that if one looks at the price of wheat on the futures market for November 2008 and for 2009, the price quoted is around £140 a tonne, compared with about £170 currently. There has been a sharp spike, but the predictions are that we will see a decrease, although the price is unlikely to return to previous levels.

Michael Jack: A plentiful supply of food for this country and for the world is dependent on the work of bees. Much concern has recently been expressed about the health of bees, certainly in this country. To draw the sting from that argument, the Government have launched a consultation process on bee health. However, that will report after this year's pollination has been completed. In order to safeguard those food supplies that are dependent on bees, what help will the Secretary of State give to beekeepers now to ensure that the work of bees is undertaken properly this season?

Hilary Benn: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. That is why DEFRA is contributing £1.3 million to the bee health programme, the Welsh Assembly Government are making a contribution and there is an additional R and D budget.
	The European countries are all concerned. We are looking with our European colleagues at what more might be done. The truth is that we do not fully understand the cause of some of the changes that we are seeing, in particular colony collapse disorder, of which reports have come from the United States of America. We are taking the matter seriously. We want to focus our money on research that will help us to find the answer so that we can deal with the problem.

Michael Weir: The rise in food prices led to an almost hysterical attack on biofuels as part of the cause. It might be part of the cause. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about the other causes. Will he acknowledge the importance of not completely abandoning the research on sustainable biofuels in the future?

Hilary Benn: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We want biofuels that are better than the petrol and diesel that they are replacing. That is why we need better understanding of the facts and to encourage second-generation biofuels, because they will make an important contribution to helping us to meet the renewable energy targets. We do not want to support things that result in the kind of destruction that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) referred to a moment ago. Three years ago, many Members of the House from all parties were signing early-day motions and encouraging movement on biofuels. We are learning as we go, and that applies to us all. We want to take the right decisions to support the right kind of biofuels.

Roger Williams: The recent Government report on food shows that UK self-sufficiency in temperate or indigenous food products has fallen by about 10 per cent. over the past 10 years. That means that as a nation we are going into world markets, pushing up the prices and making food less available for poor countries. The best estimate of climate change suggests that agricultural productivity in northern Europe will remain about the same or even improve. We are a key factor in the production of sufficient food in the world. What are the Government doing to ensure that productivity in this country and across northern Europe is maintained?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in terms of the figures that he gives. If one goes back to before the second world war and after, we were less self-sufficient in food than we are today. The reason that production has come down from the peak of a decade or so ago is that we in Europe, along with others, have reformed the common agricultural policy. That is a good thing, too. That kind of production and its cost were not sustainable.
	The market is sending a very clear signal. The prospects for the farming industry are, overall, pretty bright, despite some of the difficulties that some sectors are facing. The people in the best position to encourage productivity are those in the farming industry itself, as they have the skills to encourage people to come in. We will need to play our part in helping to feed not just the population of this country—6.2 million human beings—but the 9 billion that we might have in the world in 50 years' time.

James Paice: Two years ago, the Government published their "Vision for the CAP", in which they clearly stated that domestic production was not necessary for the food security of this country because we were a trading nation. Is that still the Government's policy? If it is, how does it fit with the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) about the importance of British production? Either the Government have changed their policy over the past two years, in which case they should say so, or they should tell us clearly that they do not believe that British food security involves domestic production.

Hilary Benn: By definition, British food security is very significantly dependent on domestic production, as the figures to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) just referred clearly show.  [ Interruption. ] For the avoidance of any doubt, may I make it absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government continue to support a strong, thriving agricultural industry in this country? The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raises an important point, because circumstances change and we need to reflect on the implications of that change. The question is: what are the right things to do to ensure that the challenge of the future is met, including by the contribution that British agriculture can make?
	I do not think that the answer is to go back to where we were in the form of intervention, and the hon. Gentleman does not either. I make a genuine offer to him and to the farming industry, as I have on a number of occasions. I am open to a conversation and a discussion about the right things to do in response to the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Coastal Flood Defences

John Whittingdale: What funding his Department has allocated to coastal flood defences in the next three years.

Phil Woolas: Overall, spending in England for flood and coastal erosion risk management will rise from £600 million this year to a minimum of £650 million in 2008-09, £700 million in 2009-10 and £800 million in 2010-11.
	The Environment Agency expects to spend approximately £90 million on capital works to address coastal flooding in this period, excluding maintenance work. At least £110 million has been allocated to local authorities for coastal protection, flooding and associated studies in the next three years.

John Whittingdale: But despite that, the Minister will be aware of the considerable concerns among landowners that the Government intend to abandon the maintenance of some areas of sea wall. Is he also aware that if a landowner wishes to carry out the repairs himself, he is required to obtain permission from the Environment Agency, from Natural England and, in some cases, even from the Marine Fisheries Agency? If the Government are not going to maintain the sea walls, will they please make it easier for landowners to do so?

Phil Woolas: I take the important point that the hon. Gentleman raises; it is incumbent on us to deal with it. The difficulty is—and I know he understands this because he has made this point—the fact that the schemes interact. A scheme on one part of the coast can impact further down the coast. The Environment Agency and Natural England have different considerations and there is the potential impact on marine life. However, he makes an important point and it is one that we need to address. I will come back to him on it.

David Taylor: Fifteen million people in Britain live near the coastline, which is being eaten away slowly by the impact of erosion, storms and rising sea levels. The Minister has said that he does not read the Telegraph, but did he read the article in  The Guardian two weeks ago that suggested that Natural England plans to abandon in the medium term a nine-mile stretch of coastline in Norfolk, much visited by the people of the east midlands and Leicestershire, between the villages of Eccles and Winterton? Therefore, many homes will be lost in that vicinity. Will he deny those reports? We cherish the Wintertons in this place; we should cherish Winterton in Norfolk as well.

Phil Woolas: First of all, I can assure the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) that there is nothing personal in this.
	I choose my words carefully as I look at the Gallery upstairs. I did read that article in  The Guardian, but I do not read the paper everyday; I cannot do the crossword in  The Guardian. I read the article and it caused some upset and worry. It is not the role of Natural England to take such decisions; responsibility is with the Environment Agency. The Government work closely with the other bodies, and this goes back to the point that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made on the previous question. I can give the reassurance that my hon. Friend is looking for. There is no question of an abandonment of the nature that the article suggested.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Minister for his conciliatory response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), but may I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend made? There is a ludicrous complication that requires farmers to obtain a waste licence to deposit inert waste on to a sea wall. This is bureaucracy gone mad. Can the Minister confirm that he has received representations on the issue from the National Farmers Union? What action is he taking to resolve this question?

Phil Woolas: In all honesty, I cannot recall seeing representations from the NFU and I will immediately check the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I see that there may be a reason for some controls, because not everybody plays by the rules or by the intent of the rules. This is not a partisan point. If farmers are reporting to him that there is a problem, we need to address it and I will do so.

Graham Stuart: The Minister will know that, like many Labour-led organisations, the Environment Agency is seen as arrogant, undemocratic and unaccountable. Flood-hit communities in the East Riding are enraged by the agency's insistence that its failure in basic maintenance did not contribute to the extent and damage of last year's flooding. Will he and the Secretary of State undertake to break up the agency and ensure that those who carry out flood defence in our local communities are democratically accountable and seen to be so?

Phil Woolas: I do not think that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), if he were in the Chamber, would accept the premise of the question. The Environment Agency has had broad support for many years; the accusation that it is partisan is unfair. As for the accusation that it is undemocratic, it has a job to do, and part of that job is consultation, but not everybody will agree. I have visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), as he knows, and we are to have a further meeting on the points that he raises. The fact of the matter is that not everybody agrees on the way forward; there are disagreements among the different interest groups. The Environment Agency does a difficult job, and I am more than happy to defend it. On the specifics that the hon. Gentleman raised, we are due to discuss them, and I look forward to that meeting.

Peter Tapsell: May I remind the Minister that in 1953, when the Lincolnshire sea coast defences were last seriously breached, thousands of lives were lost? Considerable numbers of my constituents live in homes that are below high sea levels, and they are not all readers of  The Daily Telegraph. Will he give an assurance that the east Lincolnshire coastline defences will remain fully maintained?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reminder of the events of 1953. The lessons learned then were built into our plans for defence against the recent tidal surge. Thank goodness, the fine county of Lincolnshire was protected. The Government's policy regarding the coast is of course made more difficult by the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) raised: by erosion, tilting, which is causing a gradual increase in sea level, and the impact of climate change. That has meant that since 1953 we have had to revisit the policy. That is why the outcome measures, as they are called—I would call them the criteria used—have recently been changed. I think that the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) will find, if he studies the criteria, that they are beneficial to his constituents. I am grateful to him for raising the point.

Steve Webb: Those who live in coastal communities, especially those communities that are slightly more coastal than they were when people first moved in, want certainty on two points. The first is the issue of abandonment. The Minister's apparently quite clear statement of a few seconds ago is clearly at variance with what other Government bodies are at least considering as an alternative, so does he speak with the authority of the full Government, and will none of the coastal communities be abandoned? The second point on which people want clarity is compensation. Given that the future of peoples' homes is entirely dependent on government policy, to the extent that anybody can do anything about the problem, surely there is an issue of compensation. We are talking about individuals who may well have lived in one place for generations. If they choose to live there, do the Government say, "Well, that's tough; if you live on the coast, you take the consequences"?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman raises two very important points. We have the strategy, through the adaptation toolkit, which we are working on, including by having discussions with hon. Members in all parts of the House and local authorities. That is about what specific measures we need to take to ensure that bureaucracies do not get in the way of protecting people's communities. The adaptation toolkit is very important; I know that it does not sound it, but it is. Secondly, on abandonment, the difficulty in this debate is that, as I said before, the protection of one area of coastline can have an impact on another. It is simply not possible to protect everywhere. The word "abandonment" is, of course, very emotive.
	The natural erosion of the coast, or increased erosion caused by climate change, is something that the Government could not stop in every instance, no matter how much money they spent. We need a fair set of criteria that are transparent and acceptable to the House, and that is the policy on which we are working. One can never talk about not abandoning areas if it is nature that is the problem. On the point about compensation, in the adaptation toolkit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must try to get through the Order Paper. I ask hon. Members to appreciate that I must try to call those whose names are on the Order Paper.

Aviation (Emissions)

Simon Hughes: What recent assessment he has made of the environmental effect of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.

Hilary Benn: Aviation's climate change impact is currently responsible for about 6 or 7 per cent. of the UK's total carbon dioxide emissions and 1.6 per cent. of global CO2 emissions. Recent research in 2000 by the European Commission's TRADEOFF project suggested that the total climate change impact of aviation up to 2000 was 1.9 times greater than its CO2 impact alone.

Simon Hughes: Given that the recent National Audit Office report showed that there have been no reductions in UK carbon dioxide emissions
	" if measured on the basis of the Environmental Accounts",
	which means that since 1990, if aviation and shipping emissions are included, we have had no reductions in CO2, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that when he talks to Transport Ministers about plans to build extra runways at Heathrow and elsewhere, and when the Climate Change Bill comes back to the House, aviation and shipping emissions will be included, not hidden away to pretend that they do not matter?

Hilary Benn: There is no question of hiding anything away or saying that it does not matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill makes provision to include those emissions once there is international agreement on how to divide up responsibility, for example, for a flight that leaves Heathrow flown by an American airline, refuels in Dubai and ends up in Sydney, or for ships refuelling from bunker fuel ships in international waters with a Panamanian flag. It is a practical problem. The second thing that we are already doing will mean that aviation is included in the EU emissions trading scheme. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, that means that aviation emissions will be capped in Europe at their 2004-06 level and any growth above that will have to be compensated for by reductions elsewhere.

John Robertson: Further to that point, as my right hon. Friend is aware, aviation and shipping are included in the Bill, but he said that international agreement needs to come first. If we do not get international agreement, can he reassure me that we will go down the road of an agreement within the EU, and if that does not go ahead, we will take unilateral decisions and ensure reductions ourselves?

Hilary Benn: Of course, domestic emissions from aviation are already included in the totals in the Bill, and yes, it is true that Europe is leading because the international air transport organisation has not taken the lead in dealing with emissions from aviation. We are firmly committed to support Europe's EU emissions trading scheme and aviation's inclusion in it. That is the best hope we have in the world of making progress on the issue.

Alistair Carmichael: When considering carbon emissions from aviation, however, will the Secretary of State ensure that proper regard is given to the comparative emissions from the different modes of transport available to people? Will he bear in mind that in the highlands and islands, where the alternatives are often long road journeys and ferry journeys, aviation with a well-filled plane travelling not too high can be a carbon-efficient way of moving people around? Will he ensure that they are not penalised for using that mode of transport?

Hilary Benn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why, in looking at the operation of aviation's inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme, account has been taken of precisely that point in respect of a number of EU countries where those facts obtain.

Climate Change

Jim Cunningham: What steps the Government have taken to encourage participation in combating climate change at local community level.

Joan Ruddock: The Government have taken a range of initiatives to assist communities in combating climate change. The climate challenge fund has provided assistance to 83 projects led by local authorities and third sector organisations to encourage more positive attitudes towards tackling climate change. For example, it enabled the Women's Institute to develop successful eco teams to raise awareness and encourage action to reduce emissions. The environmental action fund provided yearly grants of up to £250,000 to voluntary and community sector organisations to help them meet the Government's sustainable development objectives in England.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but does she think more can be done to encourage local authorities and householders to do more?

Joan Ruddock: Let me give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have introduced new Government performance framework indicators on climate change, which will enable local authorities to reduce their own operations' emissions and per capita emissions from their community. We are rolling out the green homes service with the Act on CO2 advice line, which will enable householders to tackle their emissions through greater energy savings. We are tackling waste and water usage, and towards the end of the year we will roll out the green neighbourhoods scheme, looking for 100 selected neighbourhoods to help to reduce their carbon footprint by 60 per cent. We are looking for 3,000 households and focusing on the most hard to treat housing stock. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we intend to do more, and that we have the co-operation of local authorities.

Julie Kirkbride: Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, should she not be braver and more proactive with regard to encouraging individuals to take action on climate change and their carbon footprints? She will be aware of schemes, operated by some local authorities, in which reductions in council tax are offered for climate change measures taken in the house. Would that not be a more proactive way forward, in encouraging people to get something back in return for taking care of the climate?

Joan Ruddock: I agree with the hon. Lady about initiatives that local authorities can take; we have made it possible for them to do that. Furthermore, probably no Government in the world are more active than ours about messages to individuals. There is, for example, the Act on CO2 campaign. I have just written to the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members about the new nationwide advertising campaign that will begin next week; she will see that a great deal of effort has gone behind that. Some 40 per cent. of our CO2 emissions come from the actions of individuals. The Government are explaining that and we are enabling and encouraging people on how they can reduce their own emissions. That is a vital part of tackling dangerous climate change, and we are extremely active on it.

Kyoto Protocol

Tom Clarke: What recent assessment he has made of whether the UK is on course to meet its Kyoto protocol commitments.

Phil Woolas: The United Kingdom is on course to achieve nearly double its commitment under the Kyoto protocol to cut, by 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. from the 1990 level. The UK is actively working with countries around the world, including the US, China and India, to secure a future international agreement for action on climate change.

Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the basis of the Kyoto agreement is that it applies to the whole basket of greenhouse gases and not simply to CO2? Incidentally, the matter is of great interest to readers of the  Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser.

Phil Woolas: That newspaper is the second most important in the country, after the  Oldham Evening Chronicle.
	My right hon. Friend has made an important point; CO2 emissions are confused with the total basket of greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 does make up 85 per cent. of the problem, but our Kyoto commitment is about the total basket of the six greenhouse gases. As I have said, the United Kingdom is on course to achieve nearly double its commitment on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is extremely important to the international negotiations and our domestic situation.

Post-Kyoto Agreement

Katy Clark: What progress has been made on a post-Kyoto climate change agreement since the Bali summit.

Hilary Benn: The Kyoto protocol parties met in Bangkok from 31 March to 4 April to discuss how annexe 1 parties can reduce their emissions. The conclusions will be taken forward at the next United Nations framework convention on climate change meeting, which will take place in Bonn in June.

Katy Clark: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree with Nick Stern that we need to reduce our CO2 emissions by about 2 tonnes per capita, as was reported yesterday?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to express the profound appreciation—of the whole House, I am sure—of Nick Stern's work on this issue. He has divided the emissions that it seems the world can cope with, if we achieve the global 50 per cent. reduction by 2050, by the expected population, and that is the kind of figure that we have ended up with. Our problem is that the current distribution per capita ranges from about 20 tonnes per head of population in the United States of America to about 0.1 tonnes per head of population in Ethiopia. How we move from where we are now to where we need to be is the great challenge faced in the negotiations.

Polyethylene Terephthalate

Gordon Banks: What assessment he has made of the UK's capacity to recycle polyethylene terephthalate; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ruddock: The demand for recycled plastic is strong, from UK manufactures and overseas markets. The Waste and Resources Action Programme—WRAP—is a delivery body funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that works across the whole of the resource efficiency loop, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware. WRAP will be helping the Government to deliver several aspects of the waste strategy for England 2007, including a core remit to develop markets for recycled materials, including plastics, such as polyethylene terephthalate.

Gordon Banks: I thank the Minister for her reply, but what would she say to businesses in my constituency such as Highland Spring that want to use recycled PET in the bottling process, but find themselves unable to secure a stable enough supply in the marketplace?

Joan Ruddock: I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend has to say, and we will look into the case of that company. I can tell him, however, that a year ago, local authorities were collecting 3 billion plastic bottles from households and WRAP is working towards increasing that collection level by 30 per cent. Landfill tax rises will encourage more recycling, and WRAP has grant-aided and supported a number of plastic bottle recycling plants, addressing one of our major problems. To give two examples, JFC Runcorn has a PET capacity of 10,000 tonnes per annum, and Closed Loop London has a food-grade PET capacity of 15,000 tonnes per annum. We recognise that there has been a problem; we are taking action to correct it, and WRAP is leading that process for the Government.

Topical Questions

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: The responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. In December, the Government ordered 22.5 million doses of bluetongue vaccine from Intervet to ensure that farmers in England and Wales can protect their livestock. I am pleased to report to the House that the first vaccine was made available yesterday for use in protection zones in England, and 3 million doses of vaccine—1 million in 20-dose bottles and 2 million in 50-dose bottles—are being released for wholesale distribution. Farmers in the protection zone should contact their private vet to purchase vaccine. Batches will be delivered regularly until the end of August and the protection zones will be progressively expanded as the vaccine becomes available. I am confident that the whole industry will give its full support to the vaccination programme.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that explanation. Is he aware that among the ideas being put forward for managing Norfolk's sea defences is a proposal for managed retreat? That will involve the flooding not of marshlands or wetland but of five villages and thousands of acres of arable land. What do the Government have against Norfolk, one of the most loyal communities in the country? Will he give me an undertaking today that those 5,000 year old settlements will not be submerged under a tidal wave of new Labour complacency?

Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said a moment ago, that I understand entirely the concern generated by the report, but as my hon. Friend made clear in his answer to a previous question, decisions about what we protect and how are taken not by Natural England, but by the Environment Agency, subject to the policy we set out. We are committed to do all that we can to protect communities, which is why we are putting more money in. We all have to recognise, however, that nature is very powerful, and how we manage the transition is a job for all of us to work on together.

John Grogan: I wonder whether my colleagues on the Front Bench are at all nostalgic for the days when we were best when we were boldest? In that regard, are they tempted by the terms of early-day motion 1331, which calls for canoeists in England and Wales to enjoy the same rights of access as they currently enjoy in Scotland, where they co-exist happily with anglers? Will the Secretary of State meet colleagues and me to discuss the issue?

Hon. Members: Be bold!

Jonathan R Shaw: I will be bald— [ Laughter. ] Slapheads unite.
	We want to enable people to have access, but we believe that such arrangements are best agreed on a voluntary basis. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those matters.

Peter Ainsworth: I think that the Secretary of State agrees that there is no dispute between us about the science of climate change. Does he believe that the Climate Change Bill should retain its principal aim of ensuring that we do our bit in this country to help keep the average global temperature below the level beyond which, scientists say, we are in dangerous territory and exceeding a safety limit?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no dispute about what the science tells us and what we need to do. The Government have reflected carefully on the amendments that were passed in another place. However, there is some difficulty about the primary purpose clause because, however bold and powerful the legislation that we pass in this Parliament, we cannot legislate for the global temperature increase. We have to reflect on that because we must ensure that our legislation is credible.

Peter Ainsworth: That was a disappointing response. If the Bill does not have a primary purpose, it is fundamentally weakened. Does the Secretary of State accept, given that carbon emissions arise across the economy and his direct responsibilities are for only a minority of carbon emissions, that the Prime Minister should take the lead on tackling climate change, not the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? I assume that, at some point, we will have a Prime Minister who is capable of taking a lead on anything.

Hilary Benn: On the second issue, the danger of following that route is that people will argue that the Prime Minister should have all the responsibility in every bit of legislation. The Government's commitment is in no doubt. I disagree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman's second question that the Bill's primary purpose is not clear. It is crystal clear. It is to ensure that the United Kingdom reduces its emissions by at least 60 per cent. by 2050. The figure might be 80 per cent. because, as he knows, the climate change committee is being asked to advise on that point. However, whether we achieve the global limit on the increase in temperature is also down to what other countries do.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend knows that the Marine Bill reserves planning powers for between 12 and 200 miles offshore. However, some offshore wind farms will be either side of the 12-mile mark. Will he assure me that there will be a co-ordinated approach to wind farms and that we will not experience the problems that we had with planning in the case of nuclear, whereby Scotland goes one way and the rest of the country goes the other?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We published the draft Marine Bill, which is the first of its type anywhere in the world. It is published on the existing settlement of 12 to 200 nautical miles within the UK. Licensing for energy stays with the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, though the new marine management organisation will provide information, especially when we look to locate important marine conservation zones.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), for meeting me last week to discuss the problems on Longstone Edge? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several hon. Members have written to me about the subject and keenly await the decisions that he and the Department for Communities and Local Government have to make in the next few months? Can he say anything further?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members who have raised that important issue, which is a source of concern to us all. As he knows, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the national park authority are seeking leave to appeal against the recent judgment. As he knows from our conversation, I am keen to find a permanent solution to the despoliation of one of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. The Under-Secretary, who has done a lot of work on the matter, and I commit to continue working with the right hon. Gentleman, other hon. Members, the national park authority and local people.

David Taylor: As energy bills escalate, the number of families pulled into fuel poverty balloons. It is unfortunate that they are expected to pay a top-up charge for Warm Front insulation. What work is being done with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to identify and target those fuel poor families? Surely that is the only way forward. The Department for Work and Pensions should not be allowed to hide behind the portmanteau excuse of data protection.

Phil Woolas: I am very grateful indeed to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Last week we had an important meeting of around 50 organisations and agencies to address the position of those who, for reasons of fuel prices or fear of not being able to pay their bills, face difficult times. Our plans for this winter are being put in place now, so that we can address the issue. We have got the fuel poverty figures down substantially, which, with rising bills, is even more important—God forbid that we should have a severe winter, because then we would face real difficulties. It is right to raise those issues now, in the spring, in advance of the winter.

Mark Harper: Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) raised with the Prime Minister the fact that the cost of a fishing licence for a disabled angler has increased by 37 per cent. in the past year. The Prime Minister undertook to find out the reasons for that. I wonder whether the Minister could furnish them to the House.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The licence for people with disabilities has increased by 33 per cent. Licences are a contribution towards ensuring that the fisheries are accessible, so that people can enjoy this wonderful sport. The Environment Agency has told me that a substantial amount of that money will go towards ensuring more access for people with disabilities. Someone without a disability has access to all the rivers and banks; someone with a disability does not. I have told the Environment Agency that it needs to use a substantial amount of that money to improve the opportunities for people with disabilities to enjoy the wonderful sport of fishing, and I will hold it to that.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the importance of carbon capture and storage as one of the tools to deal with climate change. However, he will also be aware that Mr. Michael Jacobs, one of the Prime Minister's advisers on the subject, recently advised a conference in London that Government support for a pilot project would be restricted to some tens of millions of pounds, against capital costs in excess of £1 billion. Not surprisingly, the industry has expressed concern at that. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that he will ensure that Government support for carbon capture and storage is pitched at the right level, to ensure, once and for all, that a project gets under way in the United Kingdom?

Phil Woolas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Our policy is to encourage the development of carbon capture and storage. It is extremely important to have a demonstration project showing that the technology works not only for the United Kingdom, but for the whole world's energy transformation. Our policy is to argue for the inclusion of CCS credits in the European trading scheme as an important policy tool. Indeed, I met the company concerned in the United Kingdom only last week.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate the Government on leading calls for an EU-wide ban on the trade in seal products. However, there is some concern that the ban may apply only to hunts that cannot be proven to have been conducted humanely. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government support a total and unconditional ban?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that we want a total ban on sealskin products from harp and hooded seals of any age. The Government's position on seal hunting has been clear for a long time—we want that ban enforced. We operate within a single market in the European Union, which is why it is essential that we have a ban right across the EU. A decision is imminent. We will be writing to the Commission to reinforce our point further and to seek to persuade the other member states.

Richard Ottaway: Yet again I rise on behalf of the pigeon fanciers of Croydon. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] For some time, as a result of the avian flu outbreak, there has been a ban on international pigeon racing in which birds are liberated on the continent. That is causing serious problems in the pigeon racing industry. Given that the poultry industry was given financial compensation as a result of the avian flu outbreak, will the Secretary of State at least review the regulations and give that noble sport the recognition that it deserves?

Hilary Benn: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that I share his appreciation of those who pursue the sport? I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the sector only last week. On the question of compensation, I have to be straight: there is no prospect of the Government paying compensation in those circumstances, and it has never been the practice of any Government to do so. However, I listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed about the impact of the restrictions that we have to put in place when there are avian flu outbreaks. I was able to reassure the representatives whom I met that we intend to undertake a new veterinary risk assessment in the light of our developing understanding of what the risks are. That risk assessment will consider whether the restrictions that we apply to pigeon racing can be changed in any way. I promised that I would report back to those representatives.

Norman Baker: The Secretary of State might be aware that, last month, a senior civil servant from his Department let the cat out of the bag by revealing that the Department intends to apply to the European Union for permission to delay compliance with its equality rules on nitrogen dioxide in relation to the capital city, London. We know that the Department for Transport wants to move the goalposts in a desperate effort to ensure that the third runway at Heathrow goes ahead, but why does his Department, which is responsible for protecting the environment, want to help it?

Hilary Benn: We do, indeed, need to look at how we phase in the new rules, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not to do with any decisions that might be taken in the future about airport capacity. If one looks at the recent figures for air quality, one will see the improvements that have been gained in this country over several years as a result of domestic and European legislation.

John Whittingdale: The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been several outbreaks of bluetongue disease in my constituency in the past. I welcome the news that a vaccine is becoming available, but what consequences do the Government think that it will have? Do they think that it will control the spread of the disease?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The answer is that it depends on how quickly we can get on with the vaccination programme. That is why the vaccine becoming available earlier than expected has been so widely welcomed. The degree of uptake within the farming industry is a factor. It came to us and said, "We'd like a voluntary programme, but we will give it our utmost support." The Joint Action against Bluetongue—JAB—campaign is the result of that, and we are backing it to the fullest extent possible. The message is simple: if people wish to protect their animals and the sector, they should vaccinate their animals. The vaccine supplies are now arriving, and that news has been welcomed by many people.

Mark Lazarowicz: On fuel poverty, the Government have been able to persuade energy suppliers to pay an extra £175 million to tackle that issue, but would not it be a good idea to ask energy producers, whose vast profits I mentioned earlier, to contribute to Government programmes to tackle fuel poverty?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned for many years on the issue, for that suggestion. We believe that we have the right package in place through our energy efficiency measures, which contribute to reducing fuel bills, and direct programmes to address fuel poverty head-on. However, I will reconsider the issue in the light of his point.

Nicholas Winterton: May I say to whichever Minister is going to reply that in the county of Cheshire, which I am pleased to say has an abundance of great crested newts, the county council, as the education authority, has had to spend £60,000, at a time of grave financial difficulty, to move just four great crested newts? Is that a sensible way to spend taxpayers' money? Will the Minister ensure that the EU habitats directive, under which the council is obliged to act in that way, is urgently reviewed?

Joan Ruddock: May I express sympathy with the hon. Gentleman regarding the plight that he considers to have befallen his area? I have to tell him, however, that the habitat regulations make it an offence to capture, injure or kill great crested newts. It is vital that when we consider the preservation of species—

Ann Winterton: There are thousands of them.

Joan Ruddock: Hold on a moment. Tremendous species loss is occurring globally, and there has been great loss of great crested newts in this country. It is important that we all obey the law.
	The habitats directive will not be reviewed in that context, but what has been reviewed—very importantly—is the proportionate approach taken by Natural England. DEFRA and Natural England have reviewed the matter and issued new guidance, which I will share with the hon. Gentleman. However, when he says that a particular sum of money equates to a certain number of great crested newts—it is just four—the truth is that although only those four will have been captured and moved, the moving and preservation of habitats and the way that such action is undertaken will benefit many more of the species than the particular four in question. It is not possible to equate the overall sum of money that is relevant and necessary to the number of newts that are actually moved.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 5 May will be:
	Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 6 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill.
	Wednesday 7 May—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day][First part]. There will be a debate entitled "Safeguarding the Impartiality of the Civil Service" followed by the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 8 May—A general debate on defence in the world. The House will not adjourn until the Speaker has signified Royal Assent.
	Friday 9 May—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 12 May will include:
	Monday 12 May—Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 13 May—Remaining stages of the Education and Skills Bill followed by motion to consider the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules Order 2008 (HC 321).
	Wednesday 14 May—Opposition day [12th Allotted Day] there will be a debate on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 15 May—Topical debate: Subject to be announced followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	Friday 16 May—Private Members' Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 May and 22 May will be:
	Thursday 15 May—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the funding of science and discovery centres.
	Thursday 22 May—A debate on "The Road Ahead": the final report of the independent task group on site provision and enforcement for Gypsies and Travellers.
	In respect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which has its Second Reading on Monday 12 May, it is our intention that the Committee stage for provisions relating to saviour siblings, mixed embryos and the need for supportive parenting will be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
	 Following is the information: The 41st and the 42nd, and the 46th to the 65th, reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2006-07, and the Treasury Minutes on these reports (Cm 7275, 7276 and 7322); and the 1st to the 4th, the 6th , and the 9th to the 13th reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 2007-08, and the Treasury Minutes on these reports (Cm 7323 and 7364).

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business, particularly for her statement on how the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be handled. Many Members will welcome being able to debate those particular issues on the Floor of the House.
	Reports of the presidential election in Zimbabwe suggest that Robert Mugabe has lost. Members in all parts of the House continue to be concerned by the situation in Zimbabwe and its future, so when can we have the promised debate on Zimbabwe?
	On Monday, during Defence questions, the Defence Secretary was asked if he would deploy extra troops to Kosovo. No clear answer was given. The very next day, in a written statement, he announced the deployment of extra troops to Kosovo. It is inconceivable that Ministers did not know that on Monday, and it is a disgrace that they were not frank with this House, our armed forces or their families.
	On a recent visit to Catterick garrison, I met forces families who are very worried about the overstretch facing our armed forces. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that in future, when our brave servicemen and women are deployed abroad, the Defence Secretary will have the courage to come and face Members of this House?
	This week, when challenged about how the Government have let people on low incomes down, the Justice Secretary said:
	"Sometimes...there are inadvertent consequences of changes. We put our hands up to that, we should have known more about the impact of the abolition of the 10p rate".
	Does that not show how out of touch this Government are? I have received an e-mail from a constituent who earns £550 a month working for the NHS, and her annual tax bill will increase by £197, putting her under enormous financial strain. I want to be able to write to my constituent and tell her that she will be compensated, but the Government's position is unclear. Before the Finance Bill returns to the Floor of the House, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Chancellor publishes a clear statement, and sends a copy to all MPs, on who will be compensated, by how much and when?
	This week, thousands of car owners have learnt that a Government stealth tax will land them with drastically higher road tax bills and cars that are virtually unsaleable. We are talking not about brand-new 4x4s, but family-sized cars used by hard-working parents. When everyone is worried about soaring prices, is it not typical of this out-of-touch Government to add another stealth tax to the huge financial strain on families? Can we have a debate on the impact of the Government's actions on hard-working families?
	Criminal justice watchdogs claim that our justice system's nonchalant approach contributed to circumstances in which Richard Whelan, an innocent man, was stabbed to death on a London bus. His murderer, Anthony Joseph, was released on bail only hours before killing him, even though a warrant was out for his arrest. He should never have been released. The prison where he was did not have access to the police national computer, so staff could not check if he was wanted elsewhere. More than two thirds of our prisons do not have access to this national computer, so is it any wonder that the watchdogs have branded the criminal justice system "sloppy". Can we have a statement from the Justice Secretary on what he will do about that?
	We learn today that 150 homes in residential areas will be used to house prisoners on early release. For much of the time, they will not be supervised, yet there has been no consultation with local residents. Therefore, can we also have a statement from the Justice Secretary on why the public are being faced with that unnecessary risk?
	The right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) has described the Prime Minister as
	"dithering, controlling, drifting and tormented".
	Some Labour MPs are reported as saying that the Prime Minister is an
	"albatross in a tartan waistcoat".
	On Sky TV last weekend, the Leader of the House said that Labour had been blessed to have two world-class leaders in a generation. One was Tony Blair, but who was the other one?

Harriet Harman: The right hon. Lady raised the question of Zimbabwe. As she will know, the Prime Minister raised the issue of Mugabe respecting the will of his people, and did so at the United Nations. As she may know, Lord Malloch-Brown, a Foreign Office Minister, will give evidence next week to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and no doubt questions about Zimbabwe will be asked on that occasion. There was also a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall last Tuesday. The Government are keeping up the pressure on Zimbabwe, and on the other African nations which are so important to the future of Zimbabwe, with regard to respect for that election result. I will consider the right hon. Lady's request as a proposal for a topical debate.
	On the question of the Kosovo deployment, I think that it is fair enough for Secretaries of State to make written ministerial statements or oral statements when they are in a position to do so. The fact that a Secretary of State answered oral questions the day before he or she delivered an oral or written ministerial statement does not necessarily mean anything other than that it was not possible for the statement to be made beforehand.
	The right hon. Lady will know that the UK received a request from NATO to deploy a battalion to Kosovo by the end of May, as part of our existing commitment to the NATO-EU pan-Balkans operational reserve force. The UK meets that longstanding commitment in rotation with Italy and Germany, so we are well prepared to meet NATO's request. However, there will be a defence debate next week, and the House will have an opportunity to raise such matters then.
	The shadow Leader of the House will know that in this week's discussions on the Finance Bill, there was much debate on the Floor of the House about the compensation arrangements for those affected by the abolition of the 10p rate. She will also know that there will be an inquiry into those matters by the Treasury Committee.
	The right hon. Lady asked about car owners, but she will know that the cost of motoring has fallen by 13 per cent. across the board over the past 10 years. She will also know that this Government have built new roads, and roads are now safer. We have sought to address motorists' concerns, but we also have to take care of the environment.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned bail hostels and the early release of prisoners. There is an obligation in the contract that Clearsprings has with the Home Office that the company should consult local police and probation services, and the local authority, but I understand that this is not a question of change of use. The situation is similar to what happens when a person is granted bail by a magistrates court or a Crown court and then returns to live with his or her family. We are not talking about big bail hostels to which suspects awaiting trial are committed under certain bail conditions: instead, because the issue is one of housing, the planning consultation—which would normally involve putting up notices and the consultation of neighbours—is not required. Obviously, however, there will be an investigation if the contractual obligation to consult local police and probation services and the local authority is not met.
	The Secretary of State for Justice is planning to issue a consultation paper on bail and how it operates. That will be followed by a consultation period, and a report will be brought to the House.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will know that many hon. Members have taken part in visits to Auschwitz arranged for schools in their localities by the Holocaust Educational Trust. Last year, there were two very successful visits by Scottish schools and pupils, and for the first time they went directly from Scotland. However, I regret to say that the Scottish National party Administration in Holyrood has decided not to spend the £150,000 of Barnett consequential money that they received as part of this Government's funding programme. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland makes a statement to the House about the discussions that he proposes to have with the First Minister to reverse that negative and regressive move, which was also supported by the Tory group in Holyrood?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There was a debate in the House recently for Holocaust memorial day, when hon. Members of all parties talked about the importance of the work done by the Holocaust Educational Trust, so it is very disappointing to hear that young school students in Scotland are to be denied the opportunity to learn and understand about the holocaust that the visits provide.
	It seems inexplicable that such a decision was made for the sake of £150,000. Perhaps we can understand it only by recognising that it was made by a political party that is inward-looking, narrow and nationalistic, and does not appreciate that we ought to comprehend what is going on in the world and learn lessons from it.

Simon Hughes: Let me begin on a consensual note by thanking the Leader of the House for her announcement that the most controversial issues in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. I also thank her for rearranging the debate in which the House will decide whether to approve the immigration rules, and for her willingness to think again about the increasingly urgent need for a debate in the Chamber on Zimbabwe.
	It looks as though, after four and a half weeks, we may at last learn the Zimbabwe election results from the electoral commission. Once they are public, there can be no reason for us not to debate the implications before anything else happens. The natural caution shown by the Government was understandable, but there is no reason for holding back once the results are announced and we can judge them.
	During one of the debates on the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said she accepted the fact that only a quarter of those on low incomes receive working tax credit. That is an agreed figure, so although the Select Committee on the Treasury is going to do some work on it, may we have a debate in the Chamber on this subject? There is plenty of evidence across constituencies of the feelings of people who are not receiving the money that they, more than anyone else in work, need. That is something that we could usefully do. If it helps the Government out of a hole, so be it, but it is more important for us to help the families who are in a financial hole.
	It is 11 years today since the Labour Government were first elected. That implies that we ought do as the Leader of the House has suggested and hold annual debates on how each Department is doing in terms of being open and transparent, answering questions promptly and fully, and complying with Mr. Speaker's ruling that announcements should be made here and not outside. Will the right hon. and learned Lady give serious consideration to that? Some of us feel strongly that the phrase used 11 years ago applies now: "Things can only get better".
	We have heard from the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing that, according to his profession's estimate, nurses spend a million hours a week on paperwork. Given that the police and teachers make the same complaint, may we have a debate about how we can remove the bureaucracy from our front-line professionals using support staff and modern technology, and release the people whom we pay to do the key jobs in this country to do the jobs that they are paid to do?

Harriet Harman: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's points about Zimbabwe, and I think the House will want an early opportunity to return to the issue.
	The working tax credit was discussed during debate on the Finance Bill earlier this week. It was also raised in this week's Treasury questions, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Select Committee is conducting an inquiry.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about opportunities for Members to scrutinise the work of different Departments. The Green Paper "The Governance of Britain" raised the possibility of annual departmental debate days to enable the House to consider each Department and how it is doing its work. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee is shortly to produce a report establishing how we can ensure that routine scrutiny of each Department takes place both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Royal College of Nursing, and the requirement for paperwork and accountability for the work done in respect of each patient. Perhaps he will consider raising the issue during next Tuesday's questions to Health Ministers, but I will say now that of all the health services in the world ours is the least bureaucratic, because it is a national health service based on need rather than a service dominated by form filling for people requiring insurance.

Sandra Osborne: This week some Members had a meeting in the House with the Scotland office of the new Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that it is important for the commission to become as effective as possible as quickly as possible. In particular, it needs a single equalities Act to underpin its work. We have waited for a long time for such legislation. Can we expect to see it in the near future?

Harriet Harman: Our commitment to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and to a new equality Bill, remains on track. At the time of the last Queen's Speech we made a commitment to introducing such a Bill during the Session that will begin in November this year, and that commitment stands.

Andrew George: Will the Leader of the House ensure that a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs makes a statement in the House following the conclusion of the Department's deliberations on the nitrate vulnerable zone proposals? The proposals will probably cost farmers with very small livestock farms about a quarter of a million pounds to implement in order to satisfy the regulations themselves, but a more proportionate response would be ensuring that information technology was used between farmers and the Meteorological Office. That would keep many more livestock farmers in production, rather than putting them out of business altogether.

Harriet Harman: I am aware that that is a serious issue. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise it during questions to DEFRA Ministers this morning, but if he did not, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to him about it.

Mark Lazarowicz: At this moment, mothers and young children from across Edinburgh are in the Scottish Parliament protesting to MSPs about the actions of the Liberal Democrat and SNP-controlled Edinburgh council, which have led to the closure of crèches in many swimming-pool and leisure centres run by the council throughout the city, including the crèche at the Leith Victoria centre in my constituency. Will my right hon. and learned Friend send those parents a message of support, and may we have a debate on the importance of emphasising to local authorities and devolved Governments the role played by such facilities in encouraging exercise and healthy living?

Harriet Harman: That does seem a bizarre decision, at a time when the importance of the link between sport, exercise and good health is so well understood. Those likely to be hit hardest are poorer families who need access to free sports facilities. There is to be a debate about poverty in Scotland this afternoon, and I find it ironic that although the Olympics are to take place in this country in 2012 and Glasgow will host the Commonwealth games in 2014, the Scottish National party is reducing the opportunity for ordinary people and their families to take part in sport.

George Young: Has the Leader of the House had time to read a report published recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the postal voting system, which identifies a number of risks associated with the current regime? Does she agree that, after today's local elections, it would be a good idea to hold an early debate in Government time on the integrity of the postal voting system?

Harriet Harman: The Government will be considering that important report, and I shall raise the right hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. It is important for everyone to have confidence in the voting system, and to turn out to vote.

David Taylor: As I cycle around the more rural parts of my constituency, it is clear to me that the problem of fly-tipping is starting to reappear on a considerable scale. The Environmental Protection Act 1990, which was introduced by the previous Government, placed responsibilities for public land on the Environment Agency and local authorities, but the poor old farmers and landowners are having to pick up the bill. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on fly-tipping, so that we can establish why landowners and farmers are being prosecuted or fined when they have taken all possible steps to prevent rubbish from illegally tipped on their land? It is costing them tens of millions of pounds a year at a very difficult time for them.

Harriet Harman: I do not know whether my hon. Friend had the opportunity to raise that point during DEFRA questions, which just took place. I know that it is of ongoing concern to the DEFRA team, and I shall raise it with them. In particular, I shall raise it with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), because she is not only now a member of that ministerial team, but introduced the private Member's Bill on fly-tipping. I know that the issue of major concern to her and to all her ministerial colleagues.

Michael Spicer: Have the Sessional Orders giving Members free access to the House been signed? If not, why not?

Harriet Harman: I will look into that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Soulsby: I hope that the Leader of the House can confirm my understanding of her statement, which is that the House will in the near future have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee report dealing with, among other things, the funding of science research. It is important for us to have that debate, because the threat to astronomy and physics research, in particular, as a result of the inept decision making of the Science and Technology Facilities Council, is a major threat to world-leading research undertaken in Britain. I hope that in advance of that debate, if we are to have one, she will encourage her ministerial colleagues to examine ways of putting on hold the cuts being made to that research, rather than just wait until the outcome of the very welcome Wakeham review.

Harriet Harman: Since we came into government, there has been a two and a half-fold increase in investment in research. Year on year, more support is given to science, because we recognise that it is important both in its own right and for the economy. My hon. Friend may seek on Thursday 15 May to participate in the Westminster Hall debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee.

Tony Baldry: Is the Leader of the House aware that, notwithstanding representations made by local authorities, local businesses and local people, which include petitions signed by thousands, the Post Office will tomorrow confirm the closure of a number of post offices in my constituency and, indeed, throughout Oxfordshire? Would it not have been rather more honest to make that announcement before the polling stations closed in today's local elections, rather than waiting until after they close, only to make it the day after those elections?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman will know that many announcements are subject to the purdah rule. As far as being more honest is concerned, it would be more honest if he and his Conservative colleagues said exactly how they would raise the money required for the subsidy to keep open all the post offices that they say they are committed to saving. Would it come from increased taxes, and if so, which taxes? Alternatively, would it come from cuts in services, and in which case, what services?

John Robertson: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that a few weeks ago I asked for a debate in Government time on devolved Parliaments' spending. At that time, about £34 million for disabled children north of border had disappeared into a black hole. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) tabled the excellent early-day motion 1466, on holocaust educational money that had gone missing from children.
	 [That this House commends the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in educating school children throughout the United Kingdom on the history of the Holocaust and the ongoing threats of genocide throughout the world; supports the Government's programme to finance these visits and notes that last year the Trust successfully arranged its first direct flights from Scotland to allow more children in Scotland to participate and to share their experiences with their other school colleagues; but is dismayed to note that the SNP-led Scottish Executive supported by the Tory group in the Scottish Parliament have voted this month against the use of the Barnett consequential amounting to £150,000 per annum to continue funding these visits in Scotland; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next meets the First Minister to urge him urgently to reconsider this regressi ve and narrow-minded decision.]
	Following that motion, can we have a debate on this subject urgently, so that we can look after children and ensure that they are not more deprived than they currently are in respect of money from this side of the border?

Harriet Harman: In fact, hon. Members on both sides of the House have been concerned to ensure, throughout the United Kingdom, that disabled children should not face a postcode lottery. Good services should be available everywhere, and I shall raise the points that my hon. Friend makes with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Ann Winterton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a full day's debate, in Government time, on agriculture, which has not been debated for some considerable time, bearing in mind that food security is looming large on the political radar at present? There are many problems facing agriculture. Two valid and important issues have already been raised during this Question Time, but there are others, such as the supply of protein for the livestock industry in the form of maize and soya, given that the European Union will ban certain new variants. That will cause tremendous problems of supply, which will have an adverse impact on the industry and on food supply in this country.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady makes a number of important points. Food security was the subject of a written ministerial statement last week, and a topical debate on supermarkets took place last week. There are linked and important issues not only for consumers, in respect of waste, but in respect of producers and the supply of food. I shall take what she suggests as a proposal for a topical debate.

Nicholas Winterton: I am tempted to ask the Leader of the House how she can justify her comment of a few minutes ago that motoring costs in this country have decreased over the past 10 years, but I shall resist that temptation. Instead, I shall support the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby), who talked about the cut in funding for science and technology, and put a direct question to the Leader of the House: will she arrange for the appropriate Minister to make a statement to the House on the proposed cutbacks in the resources given to Jodrell Bank, which is partially in my constituency and partially in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton)? The cutbacks could end the e-Merlin project, which is, of course, in the vanguard of research and development, and is crucial to this country. If the Leader of the House is serious about increasing expenditure, surely Jodrell Bank deserves continued support.

Harriet Harman: I think those points could be the subject of a contribution to the Westminster Hall debate on Thursday 15 May. The figure I gave for the overall cost of motoring includes the cost of cars and insurance, as well as the cost of fuel duties. I am almost 100 per cent. certain that it is an accurate figure, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. It is no part of my business as Leader of the House to give out wrong statistics. I understand that the figure I gave is accurate. If it is wrong, I shall write to him to say that it is wrong. If I am right, I shall write to him to say, "I told you so."

Mr. Speaker: I call Dennis Skinner.  [Interruption.]

Dennis Skinner: I will apologise for coming in late, Mr. Speaker, but I went to the hospital to have a heart monitor fitted. I said, "What have I got to do?" I was told, "Act normally." So I thought I had better get to the House of Commons sharpish and have a row—the effect is being monitored. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that a few weeks ago I asked her about the Government starting some work on ensuring that Members of Parliament have one job and one job only? They should stop the moonlighting and cut out the conflict of interest. More than 100 Tory MPs are making money on the side. What progress —[Interruption.] Yes, I said that there would be a row. What progress is being made on the work that has already started? Can she help me?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which should be considered as part of the debate on MPs' pay.

Andrew Robathan: Could we have a statement on the accuracy of parliamentary reference books, which we all use and which, indeed, sit on the Table of the House? This week, Baroness Young denied that she takes the Labour Whip, yet "Dod's" says that she does. We assumed that she was appointed to her job as chief executive of the Environment Agency because she was a Labour supporter. It may be that in her job she has studied those very intelligent rodents that leave sinking ships. Does the Leader of the House think that today's elections in London and elsewhere may lead to a flood of Labour stooges jumping off the Labour ship?

Harriet Harman: I am not sure that that is really a point for me to answer as Leader of the House. However, it gives me the opportunity to answer the point about Sessional Orders. I can tell the House that the House has not passed the Sessional resolution in recent Sessions, following a Procedure Committee report suggesting it was ineffective. The whole matter of access can be raised when the Joint Committee that was appointed yesterday considers the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

Philip Dunne: Yesterday, the Prime Minister made the extraordinary statement that this Government have invested in rural communities, which is about as illuminating as saying that children invest in sweets. The reality over the past 10 years is that the Government have, deliberately and for party political advantage, shifted resources from rural communities into urban communities. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on Government funding of rural communities?

Harriet Harman: It is not the case that the Government have shifted resources from rural communities into inner-city areas. There has been investment in rural communities in schools, public transport and health services. The Government have been concerned to shift resources into deprived areas, and we are well aware that those include some rural areas.

Graham Stuart: Throughout DEFRA questions today and in business questions, issues of food security and coastal defence have been raised. I raised with the Leader of the House on 3 April the fact that 2,000 homes and 15,000 hectares of farmland in my constituency are to be abandoned as a matter of Government policy. She commendably replied that that was a matter of great concern and would be suitable for a debate. She said that she would speak to Ministers and come back to me. Imagine my dismay when I followed up with a letter and she wrote back and said that the issue would be kept under review. If an answer like that about an issue of such importance to so many Members cannot lead to Government time being devoted to it, what is the point of this session and what is the point of the Leader of the House?

Harriet Harman: Well, I shall take the hon. Gentleman's remarks as a suggestion for a topical debate. If he sees fit, he may also apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Peter Bone: Yesterday, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a report that stated:
	"Migration from the new EU member states has happened on a staggering scale".
	It estimates that 665,000 new migrants have come to this country. With all the pressure that that is putting on public services, and bearing in mind that Northamptonshire has the largest number of migrants outside London, does the Leader of the House think that it would be a suitable issue for a topical debate?

Harriet Harman: The first topical debate we had was on immigration, but I will consider that as a request for another. I remind the hon. Gentleman that migrants are more likely to provide public services than to use them. They build more houses than they live in and they pick more crops than they eat. We should recognise their contribution to the economy and our public services, while ensuring that they are not exploited and that employment laws apply effectively to those who employ them.

Mark Harper: Four years ago, on European election day, the House had a debate in Government time on disabled people. Two years ago, on local election day, a similar debate took place. I had expected a debate on disabled people to take place today, although I am pleased that it did not, because it would have been overshadowed by events elsewhere. When that point was raised with the Minister for disabled people, she suggested that it be raised at business questions. Given that the Government will publish an annual report about their progress on "Aiming high for disabled people", perhaps the Leader of the House could consider having an annual debate, in Government time and on the Floor of the House, about disabled people and the Government's policies on disability, so we may debate those important issues.

Harriet Harman: The question of the equality of, and support and opportunity for, disabled people is one that cuts across several Departments. I will therefore consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and whether we can find time to address the issue across the piece at a single opportunity.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend has chosen the middle east as the theme for today's topical debate, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I requested that at business questions last week. What assessment has she made of the value of topical debates to the work of the House? Is it now set in stone that such debates will continue, or is she still assessing the matter? I have found them to be a valuable use of the time of the House and I hope that she will confirm that that will continue to be the Government's position.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also thank him for his proposal for a topical debate. I need to consider further how we bring to the attention of hon. Members the question of topical debates. Once the announcement of the subject has been made, everybody thinks of topics that they would have preferred. However, we receive very few proposals, whether by letter, e-mail, phone call or personal requests when people see me going about the House. I will look into the point that he raises.

Points of Order

John Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you enlighten me about the rules guiding naming people in devolved Parliaments? It would appear that Scottish MPs are being named on the Floor of the Scottish Parliament. Does that mean that we are now permitted to mention Members of the Scottish Parliament in this House and describe what we think they are doing wrong, as they appear to be able to do to us?

Mr. Speaker: In fact, that happens quite often in Scottish questions. Mention may be made of MSPs or Members of any other devolved Parliament, but that mention must be in order and made at a time when we are debating such matters. The name of an individual MSP can be mentioned on the Floor of the House without any difficulty.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in response to my point of order about my treatment as a constituency MP by the Home Office, you stated that that Department is not always seeking to give offence to hon. Members. I am pleased to report that I have today had a letter from the Minister concerned, whom I had notified of the point of order, assuring me that no offence was intended. In a letter that included the words "apologise" and "error" twice, as well as "sorry" and "regrettable", and which he has placed in the Library, he makes one point that I wish to clarify:
	"Normally, where there are no outstanding communications from the constituent's MP, we would not copy such a response to a peer or applicant to the MP."
	The Minister goes on to make it clear that he had had outstanding communications from me that had not been answered. He has not quite put it in absolute terms that MPs will always be answered when there are outstanding communications concerning a constituent, but it is my understanding that that is what the letter really means. I would be grateful if you would confirm that that is your understanding also.

Mr. Speaker: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is about 99 per cent. there, with a little help from me. It is up to Ministers how they deal with such matters and it is open to the hon. Gentleman to go and see the Minister concerned and obtain the clarification that he seeks.
	Now that the Minister for the Middle East is here, we can move on to the next business.

Topical Debate
	 — 
	Middle East

Kim Howells: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Middle East.
	This debate is especially timely. Tomorrow, the United Kingdom and Norway will host a series of major international meetings on the middle east peace process and related issues, the first major international gathering on this topic since Annapolis and the Paris donor conference at the end of last year. Today, I shall speak briefly about five areas—Israel and Palestine, Iraq, the Gulf, Iran, and Lebanon and Syria. Events across the region are intimately linked, of course, and are touched on in all four of the UK's foreign policy priorities.
	I want to start by looking at the middle east peace process. The UK wants a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the middle east. A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an important precondition for long-term peace in the region. The Annapolis conference in November 2007 showed renewed consensus for action and we continue to see Annapolis as the best hope for peace since 2000. However, as the tragic scenes from Gaza and Sderot show only too clearly, much more progress is needed. We continue to push both sides to make real progress in negotiations and to take the necessary steps to improve the everyday lives of ordinary Palestinians and Israelis.
	UK policy is based on support for a two-state solution, for those committed to a peaceful process and for economic and social development across the occupied Palestinian territories. Recent violence, especially in Gaza, is a cause of great concern. Israel has real security concerns, but Israeli action must be in line with international humanitarian law. Closures of border crossings in Gaza are having a grave impact on daily life. We call on both sides to refrain from violence and to work urgently to reopen the crossings. Our priority in practical terms is to support the emergence of a stable, viable Palestinian state. Tomorrow's ad hoc liaison committee meeting will focus on assuring funding for the Palestinian Authority and support for development and reform.
	In Iraq, we have seen significant progress since 2003. New democratic political structures are beginning to bear fruit. Local communities have turned against al-Qaeda and are entering the political process. The Iraqi Government have taken tough action against armed groups and militias, regardless of their sect, and Iraqi security forces are delivering on their responsibilities.
	In Basra province, since handing over security responsibility to the Iraqis in December last year, we have seen strong evidence of the increasing capabilities of the Iraqi armed forces—as reflected in the recent operations in Basra. We are enhancing our training and mentoring effort with local security forces as they build on their capacity to deliver their own security with only limited coalition support. We remain committed to supporting the work of the Government of Iraq and Basra provincial authorities in returning Basra to its former prosperity through a range of joint UK-Iraqi initiatives to support investment and economic growth.
	Sustainable progress in Iraq will be achieved only by continued support from the international community. Important challenges lie ahead, including the need for progress on key nation-building legislation, the provincial elections scheduled for later this year, the humanitarian situation and the need to support the maturing Iraqi democratic structures and Iraq's security forces. We remain committed to Iraq through our UN and coalition obligations. Above all, we will stand by the commitment we have made to the people of Iraq and will continue to encourage Iraq's neighbours to do much more to support those positive developments.
	The six Gulf Co-operation Council countries are increasingly important to our strategic interests, particularly the need to counter terrorism, radicalisation and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. We need close engagement with Gulf partners to support our efforts to promote a low-carbon, high-growth economy and we welcome their increasingly active role in all the regional issues I shall touch on today. The participation of the Gulf states in the ad hoc liaison committee meeting this week is a welcome example of such activity.
	I have visited the Gulf twice recently and have seen the huge opportunities available to UK companies. Dubai alone is now home to 120,000 British citizens and British expertise extends to the significant numbers of workers and businesses found in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

Daniel Kawczynski: I agree totally with the Minister about the importance of Saudi Arabia and other countries as market opportunities for our business people. Lord Jones of Birmingham will leave his post as trade emissary at some stage in the future, so would the Minister consider lobbying the Prime Minister for a dedicated envoy to focus on promoting business interests in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?

Kim Howells: I certainly would not want to undermine the position of my noble Friend and colleague by speculating about who might step into his post. He is doing a very good job and he knows the Gulf region very well, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is very important that, whatever else we do, we do not simply use the Gulf as a point of transit to other parts of the world. It is an extremely important node of the world economy and we must continue to pay great attention to the area. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he knows this already—that the Gulf is now one of the parts of the world that is most visited by Ministers, as it ought to be. My noble friend Lord Jones is doing a very good job in co-ordinating those activities.
	Let me turn to Iran, where we have particular human rights concerns. The use of the death penalty is rising year on year and the pressures on human rights defenders are mounting. Today, on May day, I want to recall the trade unionists and other activists beaten or imprisoned in Iran for their involvement in last year's May day demonstrations and urge the Iranian Government to release Mansour Osanloo and Ebrahim Madadi, two leaders of the transport workers union in Tehran.
	Iran's nuclear programme presents the greatest immediate challenge to non-proliferation. Tehran has hidden the most sensitive aspects of its programme for nearly two decades and still refuses International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors the access that they seek. Iran's role in the region also undermines efforts to resolve conflict and to work towards reconciliation and reconstruction. Support from Iran for extremists in Iraq and the supply of weapons from Iran to the Taliban is wholly unacceptable.
	Iran has a long history and great potential and we would like to see it become a trusted partner in the international community and a responsible player in the middle east. Iran's leaders have a choice between the path of increasing isolation and confrontation with the international community or a transformed relationship with the world, with all the political, economic and technological benefits that would bring. I urge them to make the right choice.
	We are deeply concerned by the current political crisis in Lebanon, where there has been no president for five months. The UK continues to support all international efforts to find a solution and the Foreign Secretary took part in an international meeting in Kuwait last week to discuss possible ways forward. We are offering our support to the Government's attempts to maintain peace and security in Lebanon. The UK has contributed $1 million to support the special tribunal for Lebanon, more than $1.5 million to improve the security of the border with Syria and $1 million of training and equipment to help the Lebanese army maintain public order at times of civil unrest.

Ann McKechin: Will my hon. Friend give us some indication of the contact that there has been between his office and UN refugee agencies? When the Select Committee on International Development recently met representatives we got the feeling that the approach taken by the refugee office in Jordan and that taken by the office in Damascus were somewhat disjointed. The situation at the moment does not appear to be terribly satisfactory, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend confirmed what discussions he has recently had with those agencies.

Kim Howells: We are very concerned about the dislocation in the organisation of refugees in Syria, Jordan and other countries in the middle east. We want to see much more co-ordination by UN agencies and more money put in by Iraq's neighbours. We think that that is a very important issue.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend will recall that we debated Lebanon after I visited the country about 18 months ago. One of the things that we were particularly concerned about was the thousands of cluster bomb munitions that remained in place. I know that the British Government have been giving money to programmes to rid southern Lebanon of Israeli cluster bombs, but will he update the House and tell us whether we are anywhere near getting rid of all of them?

Kim Howells: The work has been proceeding very well and I congratulate the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, under the leadership of General Graziano. It has done a superb job in conjunction with the expertise that we and other countries have provided. Although I sense a degree of satisfaction with the progress that has been made, there is a long way to go and we cannot take our eye off the ball. We must continue to ensure that the personnel and expertise are there to clear the cluster bombs.
	The next few years could bring positive changes in the region. We will do what we can to support a new, more stable and prosperous middle east, but only the region's leaders can determine its direction.

David Lidington: I thank the Minister for his speech and, in particular, welcome the emphasis that he placed on the strategic relationship of the United Kingdom with the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. Those relationships—both economic and political—are of profound importance to our national interests.
	I also offer the Minister the Opposition's strong support for his call for a political settlement in Lebanon. The recent impact that the failure to find such a settlement had on the Arab League summit in Damascus makes it clear that the continuing delay and stalemate are starting to damage relationships in the region. That is bound to have a knock-on effect on other political questions such as the Israel-Palestine dispute.
	I want to say a few words about the Israel-Palestine issue, especially given the importance of tomorrow's meeting of the ad hoc group. Conservative Members strongly endorse the objective of seeking a two-state solution. One only has to start to contemplate the alternatives and how disastrous they would be to see that, however difficult it will be to make political progress, it is right to move as fast as we can towards an outcome in which Israel, secure behind internationally recognised frontiers, can live at peace with an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state.
	It seems to me that there are three difficult issues that need to be confronted to make progress on that front, the first of which is Gaza. I just cannot see how any long-term settlement will be possible between Israel and the Palestinians if Gaza remains in its current state or anything like it. Yesterday, I met representatives from the major non-governmental organisations active in providing relief within Gaza and they told me about the humanitarian catastrophe that they are witnessing. They said that the water and sewerage systems are now on the verge of collapse and that 80 per cent. of the people of Gaza are dependent on food aid and that such food aid that exists supplies only 80 per cent. of the required daily calorie intake for the people who receive it.
	Given the history of Gaza and Israel in the past few years, it will be incredibly difficult to make progress, but I would be interested to know more of the Government's assessment of the chances of persuading the Hamas regime in Gaza to stop firing rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon and, in parallel, of persuading Israel to start to relax the blockade to allow some semblance of normal economic life to return to Gaza.

Sandra Osborne: I am sure the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman's comments, but is he aware that the World Bank recently reported that Gaza's economy recorded zero growth in 2007 and that this could continue only as long as Israel keeps up the economic blockade? Does he agree that it should lift that blockade?

David Lidington: I was aware of the World Bank report. I believe that the blockade needs to be lifted, but that the rocket attacks on Israeli cities need to cease. The two things have to go together. I will be interested to hear from the Government what information they have had from the Egyptian authorities about the talks that the Egyptians have been having with the Hamas rulers of Gaza to see whether progress can be made.
	Secondly, we also clearly need to see progress on the west bank itself. If moderate leaders, such as President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, are to succeed, they will have to be able to demonstrate to their citizens that negotiations are bringing political and economic fruits. I will say happily from the Opposition Benches that we very much support the work that Tony Blair is putting in as the Quartet's representative in trying to secure economic progress for the Palestinians. We hope that tomorrow's meeting achieves some significant steps forward in pursuit of that objective.
	When we talk to anybody in Israeli politics or any citizen of Israel, it becomes clear that the questions of economic progress on the west bank and the security of Israel are intimately connected. There is no doubt that there has been an enormous impact on Israeli domestic opinion from their experience of having left Gaza, dismantling the settlements there and then finding that, instead of being able to leave in peace, they were the recipient of rocket attacks on civilians in their southern cities.
	I have seen reports that one possible way of making progress on the west bank that would allow the checkpoints and road blocks to be removed would be to have some kind of international presence on the ground to supervise and enforce a more limited number of rigorous checks on people and goods to a standard sufficient to satisfy the Israeli authorities about the security of their people. Is that, indeed, something that will be considered at tomorrow's meeting of the ad hoc group? Does the Minister believe that there is a readiness among European countries and in Israel itself for such an international presence to be deployed? Who would provide the personnel for such a presence and what type of people are we talking about? Are we talking about soldiers being deployed and police officers being sent to carry out duties or are we talking about civilian officials? It would be interesting to know more about what is planned.
	Thirdly, we need to make further progress in making it clear to the people of Israel, who are very concerned about their security, that a settlement with the Palestinians will indeed lead to a regional settlement in which Israel's right to exist as a neighbour is fully recognised by the wider Arab world.

Tom Levitt: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. However, on the question of Israel's relations with its neighbour and particularly with the west bank, does he agree that the wall, which is not sited on the internationally accepted green line and which takes 10 per cent. of the west bank, including some of its most fertile land and water sources, cannot remain in place if the settlement is to continue?

David Lidington: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the wall had been constructed along the green line of 1967, the Israeli Government would have a much stronger case than they do at present. The route that the barrier has taken is clearly in breach of international law.
	Let me return to the issue of a regional settlement between Israel and her Arab neighbours. I want to put on record my belief that statements such as those made recently by King Abdullah of Jordan and Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia indicate that there are senior, respected figures in the wider Arab world who can see that if a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians can be achieved, the door will be open to normal relationships between neighbouring countries in the region, and to opportunities for co-operation on economic and political development, which will be of huge benefit to Arab countries and to Israel.
	The decision by His Highness the Emir of Qatar to invite the Israeli Foreign Minister to attend the recent Doha forum on democracy, development and free trade should be applauded. I hope that many more such gestures will be made by Arab leaders, and that the British Government will encourage our friends in the Arab world to make it clear to Israel that huge regional opportunities will flow from a settlement with Palestine and the Arab world more generally.

Crispin Blunt: Like my hon. Friend, I was at the forum. Was he, like me, impressed by the comments of Mr. Ben-Meir, the lecturer from New York university, who said that the Arab peace plan was of immense importance—indeed, was central—to achieving a solution, but that it needed to be accompanied by soft diplomacy? I think that that was my hon. Friend's point. That is why the policy of the Arab states needs to be directed very much at the people of Israel, as well as at its Government.

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Let me move on to the situation in Iraq. The Government recently announced that the planned reduction in the number of British troops in Iraq will be postponed. In his opening speech, the Minister talked about the political progress that still needs to be made in Iraq if a stable, democratic Government are to be established there; that progress will involve political leaders from all the main religious and ethnic groups in that country. He referred specifically to the provincial elections planned for later this year. Is he able to say anything further about the extent to which the continued presence of the current number of British soldiers in Iraq is dependent on that political progress in Baghdad and outside? For example, in the Government's mind, are they tying the deployment of the current number of British troops to a successful, peaceful outcome in the provincial elections in the autumn?
	We know from recent comments by General Petraeus that the Americans believe that the authorities in Iran have been supplying weapons that have been used to attack United States and British soldiers deployed in Iraq. Is it the British Government's assessment that the Government in Iran have indeed been directly involved in the supply of such weapons, and are actively supporting attacks on members of our country's armed forces? Clearly, if the Government have evidence that there is such a direct relationship, that has grave implications for the future of our relations with Iran. Like the Minister, I hope that we can establish better relationships with Iran in future—it is an important regional power—but we need progress, both in dealing with the potential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and on the potential threat to our soldiers on active service in Iraq.

Mohammad Sarwar: The conflict in the middle east is the biggest challenge that the world faces. Resolution of this issue is the key to peace in the region, and its stability will affect many countries around the world. It is more than 40 years since UN resolution 242. That is 40 years of disappointment, failure, and failed opportunities for peace, for which the entire international community, particularly the United States, should take responsibility.
	It is clear that Palestine is in crisis. There is an obvious political crisis in the region, and there is an economic crisis, with few jobs and little prosperity, but more urgently there is a real humanitarian crisis, particularly in Gaza. The UN has declared Gaza to be
	"on the threshold of becoming the first territory to be intentionally reduced to a state of abject destitution."
	Israel has closed Gaza's borders, surrounding it with a wall that, in effect, makes Gaza an open prison with 1.5 million inmates, and placing the area under siege. The shutdown has left the area without fuel, regular electricity, vital medical supplies and food. More than 70 per cent. of the population are unemployed, and 80 per cent. rely on food from UN food programmes.
	The largest hospital in the Palestinian territories, the al-Shifa hospital, is on its knees, with scant resources and staff who frequently go unpaid. The hospital has run out of up to 130 of the 450 medicines that the World Health Organisation considers essential, and has less than three months' supply of another 80. The blockade means that there is a fuel shortage, and fuel is five times more expensive in Gaza than in Jerusalem. Electricity is supplied to Gaza for only 12 hours a day, and the hospital relies on generators, but the fuel shortage means that they, too, will one day stop, with potentially devastating consequences. Dr. Hassan Khalaf, director of the hospital, estimates that if the hospital were to lose all electricity, 80 patients, including 15 premature babies in incubators, would die within 30 minutes. It is not only basic medical supplies that are not being allowed in; vital machinery and spare parts are not getting through, although they would allow maintenance work to be done on damaged equipment that could help to save so many more lives.
	Added to that are almost daily air strikes and land incursions from Israeli forces that have targeted homes, schools and hospitals and have killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children. The strikes have also damaged water pipes, meaning that raw sewage is being pumped into the sea, destroying the fishing industry and contaminating any fish that are caught. We must be clear that denying people medicines, fuel, food, employment and hope has nothing to do with security. That unjustified action is collective punishment of 1.5 million people because of the actions of a few individuals.
	We must not allow the people of Gaza to feel as though the world has forgotten them or that they are second-class citizens. The international community must do everything that it can to alleviate their sufferings. Peace is not an impossible dream; peace is possible, but only if the international community and those on both sides of the conflict recognise that every life, whether Palestinian or Israeli, is equal. Every life is equal, and every life is precious.
	The Israelis must first end the siege, let basic supplies in and show the people that they should have hope. We can then negotiate a fair and just political settlement, so that Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace. If either side is serious about peace, the only way is through dialogue. Bombings and the siege will only prolong the problem.
	We must ensure that we support the peacemakers on both sides of the conflict and help them to fend off the radicals and extremists on both sides, who seek to divide for their own ends. The international community, including America, must recognise three basic principles. First, the killing of innocent people in Palestine, Israel and Lebanon by bombs, missile attacks, assassinations or any other form of violence cannot be condoned and must be condemned. Secondly, Israel has the right to exist within recognised borders and live in peace. That must be recognised by all its neighbours. Thirdly, Palestinians must be able to live in peace, dignity and without fear in their own land, as specified by international law. We should give the Palestinians the support that they need to build institutions, and ensure that those institutions are respected by Israel and the rest of the world.

Edward Davey: I agreed with much of what the Minister said in his tour de force across the middle east. I hope he will excuse me if I do not comment on all the issues that he dealt with. I shall focus on Israel-Palestine.
	The Minister did not mention the Government's view on reports that Israel and Syria may be thinking about talking and actively pursuing peace negotiations. The worrying intervention by the Americans almost seemed designed to try to stop those talks at first base. Will the Minister support that initiative? It reflects some of the movement with a number of Arab states in the region, to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred.
	Many of those states are concerned about the growth in the strength of Iran. We all know that one of the many damaging consequences of the Iraq war has been to strengthen the hand of Iran in the region, whether through the proliferation of their weapons of mass destruction or their influence through funding Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest. The appalling hand of Iran is all over that region, and many of the Arab states are extremely concerned about that. Many of those states are therefore willing to try to go the extra mile to persuade the Palestinians and other Arab countries that they need to act. Part of the solution to stopping Iran is to get a final settlement of the Israel-Palestine situation. Talks between Israel and Syria, which may be symbolic of the movement of many Arab states, should be supported by us. If Israel is keen to go that extra mile, it should be encouraged.
	Hon. Members in all parts of the House support a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state that is genuinely viable and sustainable. That is why many will have been concerned to see the recent comments of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she believes the window for a two-state solution is closing fast. I do not think she welcomes that at all; she is merely reflecting some of the concerns on the ground, where the strength of the moderate Palestinians is being undermined. The increasing new settlements and the existing settlements in the west bank make the geography of a Palestinian state there even more difficult, turning that territory into a Swiss cheese, in President Bush's words.
	Peace talks are always urgent, but never more urgent than now. We all recognise the need to make a success of Annapolis. Hopefully, the talks of the Quartet in London tomorrow will go well. There is the prospect of a future conference in Moscow. Let us hope that that can happen. There are continuing talks promoted by Egypt to see whether there can be a ceasefire that Israel is prepared to accept. Let us hope that that happens. Whether through the Egyptian talks or otherwise, it is vital to persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets on Israel. It is equally vital that Israel is persuaded to stop the economic blockade of Gaza.
	There are many barriers to progress on those fronts. The weakness of both sides in negotiations is probably the main one. If Hamas could meet the criteria of the Quartet, not least by recognising Israel and ceasing violence, that would be a major step forward, but given that that is unlikely in the immediate future, we must consider some of the small steps that can be made if the sides are to show willing.
	One of those small steps relates to the economic blockade. Israel should move first on that. There is a moral case for Israel to move forward on removing parts of the blockade, particularly on health and water and sewage. In Palestine now there are lakes of untreated sewage, which are a massive health hazard and could contaminate water supplies for Israel. It is against their own interests, so I call on the Israeli Government—and on our Government to pressurise them—to enable that sewage to be dealt with urgently, through fuel supplies, electricity supplies or whatever other support is necessary. I was reading a BBC report which referred to a massive lake. If the dykes burst, there would be a tsunami of sewage, potentially swamping an area inhabited by 10,000 people. Do the Israelis want to allow that to happen? We must act on that. It is very much in the Israelis' interest to do so.
	I read another report from the BBC which would be another small step towards building confidence. Former Israeli generals who had responsibility for security on the west bank, working with senior Palestinian officials, proposed dismantling checkpoints. As the Minister knows, there are 500 Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks on the west bank, which throttle the west bank economy. The report, published recently, spoke about dismantling 10 of the main ones. That could give a boost to the west bank economy and be a major step forward in promoting good will.
	In the six minutes that we have to cover the middle east, those are a few brief comments, which I hope the Minister finds constructive.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful to be called in a debate which, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, is timely not just for the reasons that he gave, but because it gives me the opportunity to report back briefly on the trip to the west bank, Gaza and Israel that four of us undertook two weeks ago. I was accompanied by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).
	What we saw in Gaza was exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) described, but it was worse than that. What we saw was a place being starved of aid and help. Ninety-three million dollars of UN money is sitting there in the bank to be spent on housing for homeless people and people in bombed-out houses. The money cannot be used because Israel will not let the cement or the concrete through the border. For the same reason the sewage works that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned are not being repaired. It is not lack of money, but the fact that the cement and the concrete are not available.
	Gaza is half the size of my High Peak constituency, but there are 1.5 million people living there, of whom 1 million are living in poverty, and it is getting worse. We met two boys in Shifa hospital, an 18-year-old who had had both his legs blown off by an Israeli missile three days earlier, and a 14-year-old with one arm and the whole of his abdomen removed by an Israeli weapon three days earlier who had been denied permission to move to a hospital in Israel in order to get treatment. I am certain, two weeks on, that that young man is dead, like many other victims of the conflict.
	Our trip to Gaza was marked in its final seconds by being 50 yd away from a Kassam missile going off as we went through the Erez crossing. That gave us, for a brief moment, a feeling of how people on both sides of the border feel in the pervading air of uncertainty, never knowing when that weapon is going to come across. No notice is given—such things happen out of the blue. I was told that of all those sad and pathetic missiles that are launched by individuals out of Gaza at random at the people over the Israeli border, a third do not even reach Israel and fall on Gaza territory. Things cannot get more sad, pathetic and amateurish than that, against the might of the sophisticated military force deployed by the Israelis in that area.
	We made a point of going to Sderot in Israel, where we saw the same thing. It is a city in which 7,000 of those weapons have fallen in recent years. They have killed 11 people. I know that the issue is not one of score cards and scoring off one side against the other, but the day after we were there the Israelis killed 18 in retaliation for the bombs that had been sent over the border. In Sderot, 500 people had been injured and countless houses and property had been damaged. The people there are angry because they do not think that they are getting the support that they want from the Israeli Government; last year, they were in Tel Aviv protesting about that.
	I think that there is an insidious reason why those people have to stay and are being kept in Sderot. When the Israelis left Gaza, they destroyed factories and jobs and, in effect, exported the jobs to Israel. Unemployment in Israel is at 8 per cent.; unemployment in Sderot is at only 3 per cent. If someone wants to leave Sderot, how will they find a job elsewhere and sell their house? I think that it is in the Israelis' interest for the people of Sderot to be sitting ducks next to the border and targets for the sad and pathetic weapons that come over daily. In Israeli eyes, that justifies what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central correctly identified as collective punishment.
	I want to finish by talking about Azzun, the village that we visited on the west bank. I had never heard of it before; it is a village of 10,000 people just outside Kalkiliya. From the border of Azzun, the Israeli wall, mentioned earlier, can be seen. At that point, the wall is 20 km from the internationally agreed green line. Azzun has lost a third of its agricultural land to new settlers, who have moved in not only from Gaza, having been relocated, but from America, Ukraine and all over the world, and for whom settlements have been built illegally by the Israelis in the occupied territories.
	In the centre of Azzun is a fountain, only about 100 m from the main road that passes the village. In January, there were a series of incidents in which children were throwing stones at settlers' passing cars. That month, Israeli forces came in and set up roadblocks—mounds of earth—on every road around Azzun, put razor wire on top of the mounds and did not let anyone in or out of the village for weeks. Children coming from other villages for their education, and vehicles with food, were turned back. The major employers of the village lost three quarters of their employees within days, and were simply not able to trade.
	I do not know whether those children had been put up to throwing stones; my guess is that children will be children, and children in occupied territories tend to express their parents' frustration. Whether prompted by the stones or anything else, the Israeli forces went in and on 30 separate occasions—both during and prior to that period—imposed a total 24-hour curfew, not letting people out of their houses. Israeli soldiers were smashing street lamps at night and playing loud music after midnight to keep people awake. That really is collective punishment. Thirty-five children from Azzun disappeared during the weeks of the siege. Many were taken without charge to a prison in the Negev desert—taken to another country to be put in prison illegally. Two weeks ago, 15 of them had not returned and they were not allowed visits from their families, or representatives of them, while they were away.
	The week before we went to Azzun, most of the roadblocks came down; the day before we arrived, the last of the military patrols left. Although the main roadblock was still in place, pedestrians were at least using that route, and vehicles were using other routes, in and out of the village. It was collective punishment—people were being made to pay the price for having settlers on their doorsteps and daring to live on the route planned for the wall.
	Today, the people of Israel are observing Holocaust remembrance day, and it is absolutely right that none of us should ever forget how Jewish people suffered during the holocaust. However, that suffering must never be an excuse for the collective punishment by means of the illegal wall, which takes 10 per cent. of the west bank into Israel. It is not an excuse for illegal settlements with their own road networks and whose economies are split on a principle of separate development—or apartheid, as it used to be called in South Africa. Nor is that suffering an excuse for the economic strangulation of the west bank and Palestine. It is not an excuse for the disrespect for human rights on detention or for collective punishment—which is illegal, whatever form it takes.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Minister, his Department and the Department for International Development for their work in trying to get aid through—especially to that prison called Gaza. I am not a religious person, but I do pray that the talks will be successful in the end.

Crispin Blunt: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), and I commend his and his colleagues' initiative in visiting Gaza. I have also done so in the past year. The situation there is one of despair, with all the consequences that come from 1.5 million people living in terrible circumstances. Let me return to that issue later.
	This is a topical debate on the middle east, but the middle east is always topical, and it would be interesting to know why it popped up today. I did not envy the Minister or his brilliant advisers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office having to produce a 10-minute speech to cover the middle east peace process, Iraq, the importance of the Gulf Co-operation Council, Iran, Syria and Lebanon for the edification of the House. It all makes this debate an exchange of headlines as much as anything else. It gives the Minister the opportunity to restate one or two Government positions, but it is almost impossible for us to get into the detail of any middle east issue.
	However, let me try to get into the detail of one such issue—the United Kingdom's representation and understanding in the middle east. Historically, we have an immensely strong position in the region. However, in the past 10 years we have lacked the joined-up thinking, ability and propensity to draw on our understanding as a nation. Part of that has been due to the emasculation of the policy making of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the first 10 years of the Labour Government. A concentration on policy making within a small cabal inside Downing street characterised the previous Prime Minister's term in office, and that has wreaked havoc with our reputation in the middle east.
	We have the benefit of years of experience among our diplomats and soldiers, who have taken time in their long careers to understand the region and the Arab perspective. The Government have preferred to trust their own dogmatic appreciation of events. In the past 10 years, we have chosen a path that has made our foreign policy on the region seem indistinguishable from that of our American allies. Our interests in the region are, however, profoundly different. We should recognise that.
	Furthermore, the previous Prime Minister showed an interest that seemed sometimes childishly simple, and at other times deeply patronising, to those on the receiving end. He had a flair for fleetingly inserting himself into trouble spots as a sort of additional American Secretary of State—one thinks of his charge down the steps on to the tarmac in Syria for what ended up as a disastrous visit and his intervention in Lebanon—but it took him 10 years to visit the United Arab Emirates, which he did right at the end of his premiership.
	That is one example of where our priorities were profoundly wrong in those 10 years, quite apart from all the conflicts we got into and the trouble elsewhere. I very much welcome the statement by the Minister that the Gulf Co-operation Council area is the area most visited by Ministers. I would particularly like to applaud the efforts of His Royal Highness the Duke of York in supporting the efforts of Lord Jones of Birmingham. The two of them are doing an immensely important job in fronting our business and trade interests in that region, and I am delighted that their efforts are getting the support from other Ministers that they so richly deserve.
	As one of the parliamentary chairmen of the Council for Arab-British Understanding and the Conservative Middle East Council, I, like a scratched record, again ask Members to encourage more engagement with and more understanding of the region. We need to engage in more patient study of the issues and their causes so that we can understand them. We need to spend more time listening to the Arab world, and we need to listen to the Iranians and understand their perspective. I advocate visits by parliamentarians and Ministers to the region, but we should not forget the scale of the British-Arab and the British-Iranian interest in the United Kingdom. Those communities should be better engaged in our domestic processes, which will offer benefits to our foreign policy as well as to community relations in the UK. The obvious benefit is that we will then have a better understanding of how to pursue our interest in the region.
	In three or four years' time, Qatar is likely to have the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Where the Qataris decide to invest will be critical to many of our businesses and our country. Indeed, to secure our energy needs, we are engaged in creating important links to get liquid petroleum gas from Qatar. Let us just imagine, however, Iran providing that opportunity as well as Qatar. Along with the United States, we have pursued a policy of confrontation with Iran. I say nothing to defend the deeply unattractive Government of Iran or their position, but our policy is based on a profound lack of understanding of the Iranian perspective. A lot of what they do in their pursuit of diplomacy internationally is unforgivable, but we should at least try to understand why they pursue their aims in such a way. If we understand that better, we can begin the process—it will be long, but we have to start somewhere—of moving to a position where 75 million Iranians are again an effective market for British financial services and manufactured goods. Our oil and gas companies should be able to go in to assist in the development of Iran's vast oil and gas reserves, for their benefit and ours. There is a massive mutual interest.
	The product of our policy on Iran has, ironically, turned this deeply unattractive Government into the leaders of the most significant regional power. The decisions that they take, particularly with regard to the neighbouring conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are engaged in, are immensely important for the United Kingdom and the thousands of our soldiers deployed in the region, whether we like it our not. We have to find a way of improving the outcome of policy on Iran, and we would be able to do that if we understood Iran better.
	I briefly return to the Israeli-Arab conflict. We are debating the United Kingdom's role and involvement in it, and by extension, that of the international community as a whole. I sometimes wonder whether it would not be better for the international community to step back a little. In the end, this conflict has to be resolved by the people of Israel and the Palestinian people. Until the basic insecurity of the state of Israel and the obvious injustice of what has happened to the Palestinians in the past 60 years are addressed—and those two can only be addressed together—the conflict will continue. The message I urge on Arab representatives to whom I speak and on the Palestinians whom I meet in the course of the extra work I do in Parliament is that they should address their policy to the people of Israel.
	In the end, the people of Israel will have to vote for a Government who will do an historic deal with the Palestinians. In the same way, the people of Palestine will have to support a Government who do a deal with the people of Israel and their Government. That will happen only when there is a sufficient kernel of opinion in both countries that people want peace and are prepared to go through the pain required to get it. That means the Israelis have to appreciate the importance of the Arab peace plan, rather than just trying to push it away. It also means that the Arab League has to reinforce the statement of the Arab peace plan—an historic offer to live in peace in Israel and to offer it the prospect of normalisation with its neighbours. That peace plan must be driven through and reinforced with a soft diplomacy aimed at the people of Israel. It must convince them that Arab states really mean it when they talk about normalisation.
	Once that message is put to the people of Israel, they can begin to address the insecurity at the heart of many Israeli people's existence, reflected by the experiences referred to by the hon. Member for High Peak. I hope that such a position would give the Israelis confidence to begin to address the terrible injustice that has been meted out to the Palestinians. The story of the past 60 years is a horrifying one, which has overflowed into all the nations that border Palestine and Israel. One has only to look at the catastrophic effect of the involvement of Palestinian refugees on the politics of Lebanon—the awful Lebanese civil war and the enormous complications that that produced—to understand how important it is that the two peoples are reconciled.
	I leave the Minister and the House with this thought. The international community is an external actor in this situation, and for the main players, the Israeli and Palestinian people, it tends to be a question of manipulating that community to achieve a particular objective. I sometimes wonder whether the international community should try to remove that opportunity from them, and ensure that the responsibility for resolving this conflict is not something for the Americans to broker, or for other external actors to deliver. This is about Israel getting its security within a region that is Arab, and how the Arabs and the Israelis deal with the situation together. They have to stop looking to the rest of us to sort it out for them. I offer that reflection having spent a long time thinking about how the UK and others can contribute to the situation. I sometimes wonder whether doing a little less might achieve rather more.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is very little time left for Back-Bench contributions in this debate. I ask Members to reflect on that, and hopefully, all will be able to catch my eye.

Ann McKechin: I followed with interest the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). In the context of his comments about Iran, I can tell the House that during the spring recess I met a number of senior Iranian local authority officials who were over on a study tour at Glasgow university. That visit was sponsored by the Foreign Office, and I thought it was a useful way of exchanging views on a wide range of areas that did not involve the more controversial political issues that have bedevilled our relationship with Iran.
	In the short time available, I want to highlight the situation in Gaza, which several colleagues have mentioned. The International Development Committee, on which I serve, produced its report on the occupied territories about 15 months ago, and it gives me no comfort to say that the pessimistic conclusions that we reached on the future of Gaza have largely come to pass.
	Yesterday, we followed up that inquiry by taking evidence from John Ging, director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and his message about the reality of life today for those who live in Gaza bears repeating. He said:
	"Since January this year, 344 people in Gaza including 60 innocent children have been killed and 756 injured. Rockets have been fired into Israel every day and three Israelis have been killed and 20 injured."
	Violence in Gaza between armed groups has become endemic and there is a culture of impunity. We have heard that the economy has effectively collapsed, with 80 per cent. living below the poverty line, and the price of food and basic necessities has rocketed.
	We have reached the point where UNICEF is literally trying to stop sewage backing up through the manholes on the streets of Gaza. As colleagues have said, the efforts of the Quartet's special representative to build the urgently needed sewerage plant in Beit Lahia have been frustrated by Israel's restrictions on importing concrete and electric motors for generators.
	Almost all journeys have to be undertaken by foot, be it to schools, hospitals or work. Medical facilities suffer the consequences of fuel cuts, with no capacity to deal with difficult cases. I read with despair the World Health Organisation list of people who died between October last year and March because they had to wait for permission to leave to seek urgent treatment in Israel or Egypt. Some died while waiting at crossing points, and others, such as a one-year-old female child with liver disease, are refused a permit for security reasons. She died in March. The list is deeply depressing.
	John Ging advises that on Tuesday UNWRA received a supply of food to enable it to deliver food aid for roughly six days, after having had to freeze its operations for the previous three. However, there is no promise of future supplies, and half of Gaza's bakeries have had to close for lack of cooking gas.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said, the inescapable conclusion is that the residents of Gaza are enduring a collective punishment, as defined in international law, to a horrific extent, and there is apparently no end to it. Does the international community have to wait until an outbreak of cholera occurs before we decide that the current stalemate cannot be left unchallenged?
	I join agencies such as Oxfam in praising the efforts of the Foreign Office and Department for International Development staff in Jerusalem, especially their attendance at the Israeli supreme court case on the challenges to the cuts to fuel and electricity, and their engagement with the Israeli authorities on that issue. Having met officials on our visit for our report 18 months ago, I know how hard they work there. However, that is simply not sufficient.
	A new strategy is urgently required, and that includes facing up to the realities on the ground. Former President Jimmy Carter recently stated that little progress had been made since the Annapolis peace talks last November, and he is right. Construction of settlements on the west bank has continued, despite the pleas of our Government and others. In its evidence to our inquiry, the Department for International Development states:
	"Such actions threaten the viability of the Palestinian state".
	Yet little public comment has been made, nor has there been any indication that there will be consequences for Israel if that course of action continues.
	I urge our Ministers and other European Union Governments, as a matter of urgency, to speak up forcefully for the United Nations plan and take every diplomatic avenue to secure the opening of crossings to Gaza and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The donor meeting tomorrow and the Bethlehem investor conference on 21 May offer two good opportunities this month to raise the issue, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that point.
	We also need to apply more pressure to Israel to uphold its international obligations to protect and provide sufficient humanitarian assistance. I especially urge the Minister to consider using the human rights articles in the EU association agreements to bring an end to policies that breach human rights. If such breaches are proved on either side, we should condemn them unreservedly.
	I highlight the recommendation in the International Development Committee on the need to end the isolation of Hamas. That is not to condone its actions or policies, but to recognise that our strategy to date has failed and will not succeed in future. We need to support the moderate voices in the region who are trying to establish a ceasefire and reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. That requires courage, but let us not forget that until we take those steps, the intolerable suffering in Gaza will simply get worse.

Daniel Kawczynski: As chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, I felt that this was an opportune moment to make a few brief comments on that country and share with the Minister some of the reflections on my recent visit to the kingdom with fellow parliamentarians. I led a delegation to Riyadh in February, and I am grateful to Prince Mohammed of the Saudi embassy here and Prince Sultan for their extraordinary efforts to make us feel welcome and ensure that the trip went smoothly.
	Saudi Arabia is an important ally, especially in counter-terrorism. During our trip, we received many briefings from Saudi intelligence officers, who started to tell us about the extraordinary exchange of information that goes on between them and our intelligence and security officers. I was pleased to hear about the co-operation and mutual trust on sharing information and fighting terrorism.
	As the Minister knows—he spoke so eloquently at the recent two-kingdom dialogue conference—Saudi Arabia is grappling with terrorism and it has equal difficulty in trying to tackle the problem. However, we were shown, as was the Foreign Secretary last week on his visit to Saudi Arabia, many of the pioneering ways in which that country is trying to rehabilitate offenders and dissuade them from wanting to be terrorists.
	We also met many Ministers and King Abdullah, the custodian of the two holy mosques. In our discussions, he showed a great fondness and respect for our sovereign. I believe that the two sovereigns have a close working relationship and I was therefore pleased that he came to our country for the state visit. He sincerely wants good links with the United Kingdom and I hope that the Government will continue to promote Anglo-Saudi relations at every opportunity.
	As the Minister may know—I have informed the Foreign Secretary—the king is initiating a forum for multi-faith dialogue in Saudi Arabia. Although he is the custodian of the two holy mosques, he wishes to hold more of an inter-faith dialogue between Islam and all the other religions around the world. We should support him in that. The Saudis are slightly dismayed about the total lack of media interest in King Abdullah's tremendous efforts to initiate that forum. I regret that lack of interest, and I hope that the Minister will do everything possible to ensure that the British media start to report more effectively and more widely the king's tremendous efforts to pursue the matter.
	During our visit, we also heard discussions about the possibility of building the first Christian church in Saudi Arabia. The Minister knows that many Christians live in Saudi Arabia and I spoke up on the issue when I visited the kingdom. Starting to allow Christian communities to build churches would be a healthy step and I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the Saudis to promote that.
	Our meetings with Saudi young people showed me their determination to achieve change and modernise their society. Time and again, I refer to the liberal elite—the BBC and most newspapers—who run our media. They like to denigrate Saudi Arabia and always focus on the negative aspects of that society. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) talked about being like a scratched record. I for one intend to be like a scratched record in the House of Commons, in putting forward the alternative—the positive side of Saudi Arabian culture—and confronting our liberal elite media, which focus only on negative stories and denigrating Saudi Arabia. Saudi is an oasis of stability in the middle east and we need to support it as much as possible.

Crispin Blunt: I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he is presenting the positive case for Saudi Arabia. I hope that he will get across the message that we will never again expect British citizens to be treated in the way that Sandy Mitchell and William Sampson, a Canadian-British citizen, were from 2001 to 2002. I hope that my hon. Friend can get that message across, because if we and citizens of other countries cease to have such experiences in Saudi Arabia, the outlook for the positive things that he is describing will be so much better.

Daniel Kawczynski: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the other day I had discussions with the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is extremely upset about the treatment that one of his constituents has received in Saudi Arabia. I have assured him that I will set up a meeting for him to speak with the Saudi ambassador about the issue. Of course we need to challenge the Saudis. They are our friends and if we are to have a healthy relationship, we will sometimes need to challenge them. That is an intrinsic ingredient of a healthy relationship. We should show mutual respect, but challenge when we need to.
	I spoke to the Minister about the huge opportunities that we saw for British companies in Saudi Arabia in construction, finance, mining, oil exploration and education. I was not trying to put him in a tight spot regarding Lord Jones of Birmingham, but I would like him at some stage to consider having an envoy specifically to promote British business in Saudi Arabia.
	I am conscious of the time and know that other hon. Members want to get in, so I will make two brief final points. The first is slightly controversial, but as we are speaking on middle east affairs, let me say how concerned I am about the judicial review of BAE Systems' deals with Saudi Arabia. The Minister may be aware of an organisation called the Campaign Against Arms Trade. Frankly, I am appalled by these unaccountable groups—I do not know who funds CAAT, but it is an extremely murky body. I want to know why CAAT is spending so much money on challenging the Government over BAE Systems, when so many British jobs are dependent on that vital trade and when there are so many problems in our country such as poverty—we are about to talk about poverty in Scotland. This murky organisation is trying to destroy British jobs by challenging the Government and BAE Systems over our vital trade links.

Edward Davey: rose—

Daniel Kawczynski: Yes, I thought that the Liberals would want to intervene at this point.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that the challenge by CAAT and Corner House was successful in the courts?

Daniel Kawczynski: That challenge may have been successful in the courts, but the Minister may want to comment on that—I do not know—and the Government may challenge those initial decisions.
	Finally, let me discuss the Arab peace plan. Hon. Members have spoken of the vital importance of the Arab peace plan in securing peace in Palestine and Israel. I, too, would like to express my sincere appreciation for all the hard work that the Arab League is doing, particularly King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. The Arab League is genuine in its determination to find a credible solution. We must do everything possible to help the Arab League and Saudi Arabia, so that its proposals and imaginative solutions are deliberated on in this House and more Members of Parliament are aware of them.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is understandable that the focus in this debate and the wider international community has rightly been on the situation in Gaza. However, it is also worth while mentioning again, as other colleagues have, that the situation facing the Palestinian people on the west bank, although not as severe as in Gaza, is nevertheless extremely serious. That situation becomes more serious day by day, primarily because of the activities authorised, initiated and approved by the Israeli Government in extending Israeli settlements on the west bank.

Eric Joyce: It is also worth remembering to condemn Hamas a little more than we have been today. Some 700 rockets have rained down on Israel since January. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) said about many such incidents being a case of somebody trying their best in their back yard. However, Hamas has said that the purpose of the rockets is to cause Israeli migration away from southern Israel, so perhaps we should remember to condemn Hamas a little more.

Mark Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend had waited a bit longer, he would have heard me making that condemnation, which I will make now. Clearly everyone in the House would—indeed, does—condemn that activity. However, that should not hold us back from saying that pressure needs to be put not only on Hamas, but on the Israeli Government, to enter into the peace process more substantively than they have too often done in the past.
	The settlement activity is an indication of the lack of good faith on the part of the Israeli Government. In spite of the Annapolis peace conference, there has been a continuation of settlement activity on the west bank in the past few months. That activity is in breach of international law and UN resolutions, and goes against the spirit of the Annapolis summit.
	The Israeli organisation Peace Now has produced some statistics about settlement activity on the west bank in the past few months. There has been construction in 101 settlements, with construction started on 275 new buildings, while almost 1,000 units have been established in caravan neighbourhoods. At the beginning of March, the Israeli Ministry of the Interior approved the conversion of one local council into a new city. The number of tenders and construction plans in East Jerusalem has leapt. Tenders for the construction of at least 750 housing units in East Jerusalem were issued between December last year and March 2008, yet throughout 2007 and up to Annapolis, only two tenders for 46 housing units were issued. All in all, the Israeli Government are, according to Peace Now, promoting the building of more than 3,500 housing units in the neighbourhoods of Jerusalem located east of the green line.
	When that is happening, there is every reason, bluntly, to doubt the good faith of the Israeli Government in working towards a settlement that we all want to see. That is not only why it is so important to put those facts on record, but why the international community needs to put more pressure on the Israeli Government to move towards a settlement that is at least acceptable to all parties in the area. I can understand why, with his lengthy experience in such matters, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) should feel that the international community should draw back and allow the parties to reach their own resolution of the disputes. However, the experience on both sides, particularly in respect of the approach of the Israeli Government over the past few months, shows that without that pressure we will not move forward to a genuinely acceptable peace settlement.
	I hope that the message will go out from the House today that of course we want to see a stop to the rocket attacks by Hamas from Gaza or from anywhere, but equally that we need to see a change in the policies, actions and behaviour of the Israeli Government and in those actions that they authorise and support.
	In seeking to apply pressure through the international organisations of which we are a part—I recognise what the Government have done in that respect—we will be reflecting the views of many of our constituents. I am sure that I am not alone in having a number of constituents who are active on the issue locally. Tomorrow, for example, one of the Amnesty International groups in my constituency is opening an exhibition of photographs showing the plight of the Palestinian people.
	My constituency also contains the Hadeel fair trade shop, which imports products from Palestinian craft workers and sells them throughout the UK. It also imports olive oil that is produced by Palestinian farmers—sometimes with great difficulty, because of the transport restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities. I am told by Hadeel that in the past few years, almost 750,000 olive trees have been uprooted in the west bank, largely because of the activity of Israeli military units or because of the expansion of settlements there. That is worth mentioning, because although we talk about and want to see economic progress for the Palestinian people, even existing economic activity is being undermined all the time by activities either promoted directly or authorised by the Israeli Government. That is another example of how the Palestinian people continue to be put under pressure, and why the world needs to take action to relieve the immediate pressure on the Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank. It is also why we need to bring about a long-term settlement that can be accepted by the Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Kim Howells: I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been good. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his speech, which was, as always, thoughtful and well informed. He posed several questions that were picked up in other hon. Members' speeches.
	We are right to concentrate on the situation in Gaza and Israel. We could, as the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said, have talked about several issues for some time. He has taken part in our many debates on the middle east, and I share his frustration. This is my first topical debate. I did not know what that was until someone explained it to me this morning, but I know that there certainly is not enough time to deal with subjects such as this.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked many extremely relevant questions, and set the scene of the appalling situation in Gaza with vivid descriptions. I say to him that we must keep up the pressure on Israel to see the good political sense in lifting the blockades. I doubt whether there is an hon. Member in the Chamber who would seek to defend the insane actions of Palestinian jihadist extremists. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) who described some of the effects that restrictions on gas supplies have had in Gaza. It is bad enough that the Israelis are restricting the supply of gas, but it was absolute insanity for Palestinian Islamic jihadists to blow up the pumping station at the border and kill two Israeli security personnel. I do not know why that sort of thing happens, although there are many theories, some of which we have heard today. Perhaps there are elements who want the situation to intensify and become worse—I do not know. The situation is doing no one any good. We have to keep making the case for diplomacy instead of those kinds of violent confrontations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) outlined vividly the dire situation in Gaza, especially regarding key areas such as health care provision. We have heard several distressing accounts of children and others dying because they were not allowed admission to hospitals, in Israel and elsewhere, where they could have received treatment that might have saved their lives. He makes an important point, although I disagree with some of the points that he made. I say to him that it is quite right to emphasise that every time there is a perceived injustice, it creates more enemies for Israel and the peace process. The dilemma is not easy for Israel to solve, or for its defence forces or its Parliament, but it is making a great mistake by taking its eye off the fact that the deaths of children create more enemies. I would never condone the violent attacks on Israel. There is no defence for that approach, which has got people nowhere for the past 60 years. It has simply meant that people have been killed and maimed all over the place.
	The hon. Member for Reigate made an interesting speech. He said that the international community should perhaps pull back a little and let the Israeli and Palestinian people face the issues that will determine the fate of both their countries. I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view, although I do not think that any of us can be sure what would happen if we were to do that. There have been attempts to do it in the past, which usually took the form of military invasions of Israel. Those scars are still there in the psychology of that nation and in its approach to its neighbours.
	However, there is a kernel of truth in what the hon. Member for Reigate said. He made the important point that Israel and Palestine's neighbours must wake up to the fact that they hold the key to the future of that region, and that it is no good thinking that the Americans can sort it out or that the British, EU, Russians or Chinese will sort it out. Ultimately, the situation will be changed by the decisions of the people who live in that region.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made constructive points, which I was glad to hear. I very much hope that, as a consequence of the debate, the talks that will take place in London from this afternoon onwards—the ad hoc liaison committee talks—will at least keep the momentum going that was started at Annapolis. We have to do that. There is no other show in town as far as the diplomatic community is concerned.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made an important point about King Abdullah, to whom we are all grateful for the renaissance in Saudi international diplomacy that has helped to put more life back into the Arab peace plan. I, too, pay tribute to the Arab League for its work.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant  to the temporary Standing Order (Topical Debates).

Child Poverty in Scotland

[Relevant documents: T he Third Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08, on Child Poverty in Scotland, HC 277 and the Government' s response thereto, HC 525.]

Anne McGuire: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of child poverty in Scotland.
	I am grateful to have the opportunity to address this issue, and I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for their report. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's speech, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Let me say at the outset that for members of the Government and Labour Members, a number of issues go to the heart of our involvement in politics. Poverty—crucially, child poverty—is one such issue. The Governments of the 1980s and 1990s were reluctant to talk about poverty and unwilling to accept that it even existed. They presided over the view that unemployment was inevitable and that the economic consequences on workless families and children were unavoidable. As unemployment grew and matters such as schools, hospitals and housing failed to get the investment that they needed, poverty also grew. In particular—in a telling comment on the policies of the previous Government and, dare I say it, to their shame—child poverty not only grew, but doubled. In Scotland, we saw communities devastated by unemployment and the once aspirant working man and woman worn down as they were abandoned by an uncaring and apparently unconcerned Government into an existence based on worklessness and benefits.
	When the Government came to power in 1997, they inherited some of the highest rates of child poverty among the industrialised nations. One in four children lived in poverty. Child poverty had doubled between 1979 and 1997 and 3.4 million children were living in poverty across the country. The UK topped the European league for the number of children living in poverty, and the trend was getting worse instead of better.
	That inexorable rise in child poverty was the backdrop to what has become one of the boldest and most historic commitments of any new Government coming into power. In 1999, this Government committed to halving child poverty by 2010 and to abolishing it by 2020.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister will know of the widespread concern among the relevant non-governmental organisations that we are probably not going to meet the 2010 target. Since the report was published, we have seen a remarkable rise in the cost of many staple foodstuffs and, indeed, in the price of fuel. What impact have those significant increases had on the Government's ability to meet the 2010 target, and what assessment has her Department made of that impact?

Anne McGuire: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come on to deal with those issues later. We must recognise the fluctuations in costs and it is quite difficult to carry out an analysis over such a short period. I will deal with the heart of these questions a little later in my speech.
	In 1999, the Government committed themselves to halving child poverty by 2010 and abolishing it by 2020. We not only committed to halt the upward trend in child poverty and bring it down but set ourselves on a path to abolish it altogether. I hope that all hon. Members, regardless of their political background, will recognise that our commitment was bold as well as ambitious. I would like to put on record the fact that we made such a powerful commitment because we understood the damage that poverty does to individuals and communities. Poverty not only erodes a person's self-confidence; it limits their ambition and puts them at a long-term disadvantage.
	In childhood, poverty is especially corrosive. During a time of life that should be full of hope and opportunity, a child living and growing up in poverty, is especially vulnerable.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that linked with poverty is the issue of education, which provides the way out of poverty? The Government have done an excellent job in that respect, as did the previous Administration in Scotland. What should we say, however, about a party that would deny young people their right to education, particularly at the pre-school under-five level?

Anne McGuire: That is obviously a question for another Administration of a different political party to answer, so I hope that during this afternoon's debate we will be able to hear some defence of the more eccentric decisions taken by the new Administration in Holyrood. Although they are good at talking warm words, they are not very good at alerting us to their delivery mechanisms. My hon. Friend thus makes a very good point, and I know that the importance of education is recognised in many parts of his constituency as the key to liberating young people and enabling them to have a career that will give them both fulfilment and finance.
	Labour Members—I will be generous and say that this might also apply to some other Members—well know that children who grow up in poverty are likely to see their educational aspirations crushed and their health and development stymied by it. That is why this Government acted and have continued to act on poverty every year since 1999. We want nobody to be left behind, no child's life blighted before their potential is realised.
	I am especially pleased to report that things have improved markedly. Compared with 1997, there are now nearly 3 million more people in employment across the UK and 600,000 fewer children living in poverty. In Scotland, there are more people in work and 90,000 fewer children living in poverty. Since 1997, unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 82,000—nearly 39 per cent.

Pete Wishart: Perhaps the Minister will describe how the abolition of the 10p starting rate of income tax will help in the battle against general poverty?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman's party lacked the commitment to stay up and vote for any of our policies to alleviate poverty. Let me remind him of the national minimum wage, for example— [Interruption.] I will address the issue in general terms, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that they will do more to help single and older people affected by the abolition of the 10p rate. If he has a fair mind, and I am open to persuasion on that— [Interruption.] The Minister of State says that he has already made up his mind about that. If the hon. Gentleman has a fair mind, he will recognise that over a 10-year period, we have invested in families and children in Scotland. I am coming on to deal with some of the more specific issues.

Anne Begg: Before the Minister moves on, may I say that extra help for families with children was provided in the Budget, but the Scottish National party voted it down?

Anne McGuire: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has pinpointed the inconsistencies—we have to be careful about the words we use in this Chamber—in the views of SNP Members.  [Interruption.] Let me make a little progress, particularly in view of the heckling by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil).
	I was saying that progress has been made on child poverty in Scotland. Thanks to a co-operative and sustained partnership between the UK Government and the previous Scottish Executive, child poverty in Scotland is now lower than the UK average. Between 1998-99 and 2005-06, the proportion of children in relative low income in Scotland fell from 28 per cent. to 21 per cent.—a fall of 90,000—and is now lower than the UK average, as was identified by the recently published Scottish Government discussion paper on tackling poverty.
	Those statistics mean that Scotland met the 2004-05 child poverty target to reduce relative child poverty in Great Britain by one quarter and it is no coincidence that, as employment rises and unemployment decreases, we see this marked reduction in child poverty. The Government continue to believe that employment—a job—is the key route out of poverty and that work for those who can remains the most sustainable route in tackling poverty. So, achieving our goals on child poverty will be realised only by making real progress in achieving our goal of employment opportunities for all.
	Of course, work must be made to pay, which is why the Government introduced the tax credit system and the national minimum wage in spite of the siren voices on the official Opposition Benches who told us it would cost millions of jobs and in spite of the sleepy heads on the SNP Benches who could not even stay up to vote for it. We know, too, that children living in workless families are much more likely to be poor.  [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar would have stayed up all night, but perhaps he should comment on whether his colleagues were capable of staying up to vote on an important issue that meant a lot to many low-paid families in Scotland. Worklessness disadvantages not only parents, but their children, so to secure progress on employment is to secure progress on child poverty. A Government can do few better things than help a parent to get a job, which will not only help them, but help provide for their children. In lone parent households, or families in which an adult is disabled, employment support is particularly needed. That is why the new deal programme has been so important and successful, helping thousands of people in Scotland into work.

Jim Sheridan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best qualities of the Scottish people is that regardless of their poverty problems at home, they still recognise that people in other parts of the world are worse off than they are? Will she therefore join me in recognising the good work of the previous First Minister, and the previous Scottish Executive, in Malawi?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not go wide of the debate on Scotland and include Malawi. We had better concentrate our remarks.

Anne McGuire: Obviously, I take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but solidarity in recognising poverty can have a resonance for many people in Scotland. I promise that I will not stray much beyond the terms of today's Order Paper.
	The new deal in Scotland has supported many disabled people into employment. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions manages a number of employment schemes in Scotland aimed at helping disabled people to start and retain work. Those include pathways to work, the new deal for disabled people, work preparation and access to work programmes.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is an outstanding Minister for the rights of disabled people. Keeping within the remit of our debate, may I refer to paragraph 42 of the Scottish Affairs Committee's report, which is specific about the need to focus on disabled people, including disabled children, not least because, sadly, they experience more poverty than most other groups? I know that my hon. Friend will wish to address that matter.

Anne McGuire: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. As a result of his parliamentary hearings into the lives of disabled children and their parents, he and many organisations in Scotland have expressed grave concern that some of the resources allocated at UK level, and Barnetted into Scotland— [Interruption.] Do not worry, it is a new word; it will appear in a dictionary in 10 years' time. The worry expressed was that those resources will not be as focused on disabled children and their families as my right hon. Friend and his Committee identified during those hearings, and as many of the parents from Scotland who addressed that Committee and spoke to its members had hoped. However, that is a matter for the Scottish Executive under the devolution settlement.

Michael Weir: Surely the Minister realises that the money is part of the settlement, or concordat, with local authorities. Does she not trust local authorities, particularly Labour local authorities, to use the money for the correct purpose? Even the Scottish Affairs Committee recognises the need to end ring-fencing.

Anne McGuire: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to my words rather than anticipate them. I said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) and many organisations had expressed concern that the money might not be as focused, but that it was a matter for the Scottish Executive—the Scottish Government—to determine. As the party that led the campaign in Scotland for a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers, we have a confidence in the devolved settlement that is not shown by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).

Michael Weir: Is the Minister not missing the point? The money went to local authorities—including Labour local authorities—and they will make the decision at the end of the day.

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has made time and again. Notwithstanding the fact that the matter is within the remit of the Scottish Executive and their relationship with local authorities, the concern about that money came out of a UK parliamentary consultation, which included parents from Scotland— [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen know the rules of debate of the Chamber, and should observe them.

Anne McGuire: I am not making this up—ordinary people in Scotland, and members of organisations representing disabled people in Scotland, have addressed the issue and are deeply concerned about it. It is a matter for the Scottish Executive to answer. The hon. Member for Angus and his party cannot wash their hands of responsibility in this respect. For them, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State says from a sedentary position, it is always somebody else's fault.
	Let me return to the issue of employment in Scotland. I am clear that there is a connection between employment and the alleviation of poverty. Scotland used to have a lower employment rate, but Scotland now has a higher employment rate—1.8 per cent. higher than the UK average. I am not sure whether representatives of the Scottish National party want to accept that statistic, but it is true. Across the UK, the number of lone parents on benefit has fallen by 19 per cent., yet in Scotland it has fallen by 27.7 per cent. That advantage in Scotland has arisen from the strong partnership within the United Kingdom.
	Having a job brings self-respect, financial autonomy, wider social relationships and better health prospects. Those benefits are not only for parents; they feed directly into the lives of children. The DWP will continue to be committed in Scotland to helping parents to find work and to balance work with their caring responsibilities. We recognise that work must help to build a sustainable future for them, their families and communities.
	It is one thing to ask a parent to consider work, and quite another to expect them to take up such opportunities when barriers are in their way. The DWP must therefore work in partnership with the devolved Administrations to break down those barriers, and we do so. Undoubtedly, one of those barriers is the lack of accessible child care, and significant investment in Scotland and other parts of the UK has helped thousands of parents, especially lone parents, to get back into work. Funding for the then Scottish Executive's child care strategy rose from £29.75 million in 2004-05 to more than £43 million in 2005-06, to continue to provide affordable, accessible, quality child care places for children from zero to 14 years of age in all neighbourhoods.

Anne Begg: Part of the package of child care is the previous Scottish Executive's commitment to nursery places for all three and four-year-olds, as well as for two-year-olds in vulnerable groups. In Aberdeen, that provision has been wiped completely off the map by the SNP-Liberal Administration's budget cuts last month.

Anne McGuire: It is perfectly legitimate for those of us who hold part of the partnership in delivering jobs and a better future for parents and their children to ask why that has happened in my hon. Friend's local authority. If such questions need to be directed to the Scottish Executive—the Scottish Government—then so be it, albeit within the rules of debate and order in this House.

Jim Sheridan: I remind my hon. Friend that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) is not an isolated case, as the SNP-Lib Dem administration in my own part of the world is also closing nurseries.

Anne McGuire: We are in partnership with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom to work in the best interests of the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom.  [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar finds that funny, then I am sorry, but I do not agree when I hear stories such as those of my hon. Friends about child care packages in some parts of Scotland being cut. That funding is necessary because it provides affordable, accessible child care places, giving parents in deprived areas access to education, training or employment.

Alistair Carmichael: Much of the support for child care that the Minister's Department has provided in recent years for people wanting to go back to work has been contingent on the availability of registered child minders. In many communities, such as the small islands that I represent, there are no registered child minders, so people do not have the same access to help from her Department. Will she consider that?

Anne McGuire: We are not in total control of the agenda, obviously, but as I will say later in my speech, if I ever get there, we are working with the Scottish Government to examine ways in which we can co-operate to ensure that we meet what is, in fairness, a shared objective on the abolition of child poverty by 2020.
	My next comment may help the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). In successive Budgets, we have used the tax and benefits system to work in ways that support the most vulnerable but retain incentives to work. We have targeted our financial resources to ensure that work pays, as well as to help families who, for whatever reason, cannot work. Those tax and benefit initiatives have also been key to alleviating child poverty and directly supporting needy families. I am therefore delighted to be able to advise the House that from April 2010, when the latest changes come into effect, the average Scottish household with children will be £2,000 better off in real terms since 1997—and low-paid families have benefited disproportionately. Scottish households with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be £4,100 better off.
	I also ask the House to note that take-up of tax credits for families with children is higher than under any previous system of income-related financial support for in-work families. In 2004-05, take-up of child tax credit in Scotland rose to 82 per cent., with 94 per cent. of the money claimed. Take-up among those with incomes of less than £10,000 is now 97 per cent.
	All those reforms have been key to alleviating child poverty. Had the Government done nothing other than merely to uprate the 1997 tax and benefits system, the number of children in poverty might be 1.7 million higher than it is today.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Anne McGuire: No.
	The result of all these reforms, from employment support to child care to the tax and benefits system, has been significant. We can be proud that, while progress in tackling child poverty has been successful across the UK, greater progress has been made in Scotland, as my hon. Friends and the Select Committee have identified.
	However, there is still a long way to go, and we are certainly not complacent about the need to do more to meet our targets for 2010 and 2020. With 2.8 million children still living in poverty in the UK, including 210,000 in Scotland, we cannot afford to relax. There are particular challenges ahead, including reaching more effectively children in large families, with disabled parents, or from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Poverty still has too great an impact on the life chances of children for us to relax our efforts, and Labour Members have no intention of doing so. Child poverty is neither acceptable nor inevitable. We must therefore remain completely committed to the targets that we have set—targets, not the aspirations that the Conservatives talk about. They have aspirations, or empty words in documents and speeches, while we have targets that we aim to achieve.

Ben Wallace: How does the Minister reconcile the fact that poverty rates for working-age adults without dependent children—tomorrow's parents—have risen to the highest level since records began in 1961 and now stand at 800,000 more than in 1998 with her optimism on her child poverty targets?

Anne McGuire: As the hon. Gentleman would recognise if he had listened to what I have said about the work that we are undertaking and to the statements made in the Budget by the Chancellor—not just the current Chancellor but the previous one—we know that we still have a long way to go. Let me throw this back at him. Given that he comes from a party that did not even recognise that there was an issue with child poverty and now uses warm words in a document published only a few days ago, which is still light on what it is going to do about tackling the problem, there are more questions for him than there are for us.
	In spite of the tight fiscal climate in the 2008 Budget, we demonstrated our ongoing commitment, with £950 million of additional spending to tackle child poverty. The Budget set out the next steps, with measures that will make significant further progress towards the target of halving child poverty by 2010. Those included a further £50 increase to the child element of child tax credit from April 2009, an increase in the first child rate of child benefit to £20 from April 2009, and the introduction of a child benefit disregard for housing benefit and council tax benefit purposes. Those measures alone will lift up to a further 250,000 children out of poverty and towards our final goal of abolishing it altogether.
	We recognise, however, that abolishing child poverty can be achieved only by working in partnership. That was recognised in the title of our 2008 Budget document, "Ending child poverty: everybody's business", which sets out the next steps that we will take, including new pilots and further areas of work to achieve the 2020 target. One expression of that partnership is the joint child poverty unit, supported by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. That unit brings together child poverty policy officials and analysts in the two Departments, along with a secondee from Barnardo's, to provide a co-ordinated and focused approach. The unit will regularly meet its counterparts in the devolved Administrations through the four countries policy forum. The aim of the meetings is to share understanding, data and good practice and to drive forward the UK child poverty strategy. The forum had its first meeting on 22 January 2008. Beyond that partnership, the UK Government are open to further practical suggestions in working with all our Scottish partners, including the Scottish Executive, local authorities, charities and businesses.
	As I said, we welcome the second and third reports of the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08, on poverty in Scotland and child poverty in Scotland. The Committee identified a number of issues that it believes need to be addressed, and we want to respond by being part of the coalition within and outside Government that will continue to work together to build on the progress already made.
	Back in 1999, this Government had the courage and vision to set targets to halve child poverty by 2010 and eradicate it by 2020. Today, almost a decade on, we are as determined as ever to meet those challenging goals. However, Westminster and Whitehall cannot achieve those objectives alone. Ending child poverty requires a sustained national, regional and local effort that involves the devolved Administrations and all agencies, service providers and professionals, including communities and businesses. We set out the beginnings of a contract in "Ending child poverty: everybody's business". It was a pledge that all parts of society would do their bit to tackle this blight on children, communities and future prosperity.
	The Government will work closely with all stakeholders, including through a series of workshops and debates this summer, to develop the UK's longer-term strategy to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The UK Government want to continue to work with the Scottish Government. That working relationship is vital if we are to make progress on our shared goal to eradicate child poverty in Scotland, but it needs to be based on a mature partnership. We cannot allow this vital issue to become a political football on the constitutional pitch.
	We have to increase the pace of change, but the political will is there to do exactly that. That is something that we will see coming through clearly in the months ahead.

Michael Weir: indicated dissent.

Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene about the constitutional issue? I thought that he was making a comment about it.

Michael Weir: I am surprised at what the Minister has said. The Scottish Government are very keen to make progress on child poverty, but I remind her that all the briefings and reports that we got for this debate point out that the benefits system for which this House is responsible plays a huge part in causing child poverty in Scotland. This Government have to take action on putting in the £4 billion needed to tackle child poverty in the UK. That amount needs to be compared with what is being spent on the Olympics.

Anne McGuire: There is sometimes political amnesia. I regret offering the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene, but I thought that he was going to say that the Scottish National party MPs in this House would do all that they could to ensure that we have a mature and robust relationship with the Scottish Government. Interestingly, question No. 10 in the consultation document recently sent out by the Scottish Government asks whether there should be extra powers under devolution. What on earth has that got to do with the task in hand? I hope that we do not get bogged down in a political football game on an issue that is too important for that. We have to increase the pace of change and we need the political will to make something happen.
	We are committed to building an inclusive, cohesive and prosperous society, with fairness and social justice for all. Ending child poverty will not be an easy task, but it is the right thing to do. It is not just about fulfilling an historic mission; it is about building a future in which every child can grow to fulfil their true potential and where no child grows up blighted by poverty.
	Given the Government's commitment on this matter, and the commitment of people and organisations in Scotland, I believe that we can—and must—end child poverty once and for all.

David Mundell: I very much welcome having a debate on the Floor of the House that focuses on Scotland. Perhaps such debates should take place more often, and not only when elections are being held in England. Ironically, the most recent debate here to focus on Scotland was held when the debacle that was the Scottish elections took place nearly a year ago. I hope that, like me, Ministers will use what influence they have to bring matters affecting Scotland to the Floor of the House.
	I welcome the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, and want to take this opportunity to pay my respects to our Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). He has provided wise chairmanship, and shown a willingness to allow members of all parties and with all points of view to make those views known during our sittings. I found the Committee's various visits and evidence-taking sessions to be extremely useful. I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) is not present today, as I expected him to use this opportunity to campaign, as he always does, for a new railway station in Dundee.
	I was disappointed that the Committee was not able to visit my constituency. I know that that was not deliberate, but we did not focus as much as perhaps we should have done on communities such as Rigside and Kelloholm. They are essentially urban communities in a rural location, and suffer from some very specific difficulties that are not the traditional and often discussed problems associated with rural poverty.
	I have noted the response from the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government to the Scottish Affairs Committee report. On this occasion, I agree with the Minister that it is essential that the UK and Scottish Governments work together on these matters. We should not focus on our political and constitutional differences, as our key objective is to reduce child poverty.
	I also noted what the Minister said about local government. It is very important that the Department for Work and Pensions works closely and directly with local government in Scotland. Representatives of Scottish local government made it clear to the Committee that, since the devolved settlement and for no particular reason, the relationship between the DWP and Scottish local government was not as direct as it had been. I hope that that matter will be addressed.
	The Minister also referred to an important document—"Making British Poverty History"—that has been published and launched by my right hon. Friend the. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I shall be referring to it, as it is relevant to this debate, and I shall also say more about the report on Glasgow by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that was part of his "Breakthrough Britain" series for the Centre for Social Justice. I was very pleased that the Glasgow report was well received, especially by the leader of Glasgow city council.
	Obviously, I am not about to agree with the Minister's interpretation of the past but, given that today's debate is to focus on the future, I will agree with her that it is not acceptable for the latest figures to show that 23 per cent. of children in Scotland—or some 250,000 children—are living in poverty. Those children have a low standard of living and are unable to access many of the leisure, sports and cultural opportunities available to others, and they are also at increased risk of educational failure, ill health and being unable to move into work when the time comes.
	They in turn are likely to bring up their children in poverty. Indeed, the most probable explanation for an adult being in poverty is that he or she was born in poverty, rather than their having suffered a mid-life catastrophe.
	It is clearly agreed throughout the House that addressing child poverty in Scotland should be a priority for any Government, but although I recognise that the Minister feels passionately about the subject, and that by and large the United Kingdom Government are expending a great deal of effort, I believe that the Government's approach is flawed. They have placed too much faith in what simply spending more money on a problem can do. The cocktail of mega-money and micro-management has been characteristic of Labour's approach in most areas of social policy, and in child poverty as in other areas the results have been mixed.
	I believe that three changes are required. First, the tax and benefits system should be simplified, and the disincentives to work that are built into it should be removed. Secondly, Government action should focus more on addressing the root causes of poverty, such as educational failure, family breakdown, indebtedness, drug abuse and crime, rather than merely addressing its symptoms. Thirdly, the Government have trusted communities and people too little. I should like to see central, devolved and local government supporting voluntary and community groups in their efforts to end poverty, even if that means giving up some control.
	As the hon. Lady said, the Government's flagship policy was their tax credit system. That system, designed by the current Prime Minister and his boffins at the Treasury, is one of byzantine complexity. It is so complicated that even Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, the Government body responsible for administering the system, does not understand it. In the last year for which we have data, HMRC managed to get more tax credit payments wrong than right. Make no mistake: this is not just a situation that ties up civil servants in recalculating payments. It is not even just a situation that has led to the loss of £5 billion in public funds through overpayment, fraud and error, although it has certainly done that. Most gravely, it is a situation that has seen many of Britain's poorest families facing the prospect of repayment demands, and many others scared off even applying for tax credits, in case they receive such demands further down the line. That should alarm the Government.

Sandra Osborne: I do not deny that there have been bureaucratic problems that have caused distress to a number of people, but tax credits have also helped many families out of poverty. What would be the hon. Gentleman's alternative?

David Mundell: As the hon. Lady knows, Opposition Members have made it very clear that they would retain the tax credit system but would make it work effectively.

Jim Sheridan: How?

David Mundell: It is very clear how the system could be made to work more effectively. It is about giving people the right amount of money to which they are entitled. It is about dealing with bureaucracy. It is about not clawing back money from people who can ill afford it. It is all very well for Labour Members to jest about the topic, but they have had 10 years to get the system right, and they have failed to do so.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman spoke of "clawing back" tax credit overpayments from people who could ill afford to repay the money. Is it now his party's policy to write off tax credit overpayments?

David Mundell: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech, he would have heard that it is our party's policy to get people's tax credits right the first time.
	I said that many people had been discouraged from applying for tax credits because of errors in administration, but, as the House must know by now, many more people who were eligible were deterred from going near the scheme in the first place, for the reasons that we have just been discussing. The same complexity that makes the scheme difficult to administer also makes it difficult to access.
	Take-up of working tax credit by people without children is only 22 per cent. I remind the House that as well as being one of the principal weapons in the Government's anti-poverty armoury, tax credit is likely to be one of the key routes through which the Government attempt to provide compensation—or so they say—for their abolition of the 10p tax rate. Given such a low take-up, it is hardly surprising that the report on child poverty by the Scottish Affairs Committee features the constant refrain that the tax and benefits system needs to be simplified. That is what the Conservatives have said almost since the moment that the Prime Minister, as Chancellor, took control of it, and I hope that we are now beginning to see a consensus.

Anne Begg: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from tax credits, I would be interested to hear him clarify the point he is making about bureaucracy. One of the reasons why tax credits are often overpaid is the way in which the system works to ensure that people do not constantly have to give information about income changes; the system contains an element of rationalisation. Is it the Conservative party's position that such reconciliation should take place monthly? That would be even more bureaucratic, which is why the Government did not go down that route.

David Mundell: Our position is that where people have identified that they are being overpaid tax credits, they should have the ability to pay the money back. As the hon. Lady knows, they do not have that ability at the moment.

Jim Sheridan: Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), may I ask whether the Conservative party agrees that there should be an amnesty for those whose tax credits have been overpaid?

David Mundell: As I have made clear to the House, we believe that the tax credits system should be sorted out. The hon. Gentleman's party has had the time to sort out the system, but it has failed to do so: a Conservative Government will do it.
	Given the number of times that the words "simplify", "simplification" and "simpler" appear in the Red Book, I do not think that the Government are listening to what is said about the tax and benefits system. I was going to say that "simple" appears to be the new buzzword, replacing "prudence"—although I admit that it would be grossly unfair to use that term to describe the Prime Minister. I suppose people now realise that it was equally inaccurate to describe him as prudent. At its most serious, the complexity of the system has allowed all the Government's initiatives to pass many of the most seriously impoverished families completely by. There is real concern that many are unaware that they might be eligible for some of the plethora of different types of benefit on offer, or may not have the confidence to complete a complicated means-testing process.
	It has been stated that
	"Current policies are having no effect on the very poorest children and their families".
	Those are not my words; they are those of Save the Children's severe child poverty report of last year. The sad state of affairs even led the Scottish Affairs Committee to ponder whether increasing the level of the old-fashioned universal child benefit might be the only way in which the Government would be capable of getting help to those who need it most. What is the point of having such a complex and expensive system of targeting support as the tax credit system if the bullseye of that target is left untouched?

Katy Clark: Surely the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that during the 18 years in which his party was in power between 1979 and 1997, this country's child poverty doubled and became the highest in Europe, and that since Labour came into power in 1997, some 600,000 children have been taken out of poverty? Does he not think he is in a very difficult position to give anybody advice about how to end child poverty in this country?

David Mundell: I do not accept the hon. Lady's proposition at all. In fact, her contribution typifies the approach of Labour Members, who wish to focus entirely on the past, and not on the future or on their inability to meet the targets that they set for themselves.
	It is unfortunate that Labour's policies were all calculated on the basis of a very narrow measure of poverty: having less than 60 per cent. of average median income, adjusting for family size. On that basis, the Government set a target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. Although I share that aspiration, I would point out that progress to date has been largely achieved by moving hundreds of people who were receiving a few pounds a week less than the poverty line to a position in which they receive a few pounds more. In other words, the Government have been able to present themselves in a favourable light to the media without letting on that the problems of very severe poverty have largely been left untouched.
	So, if we accept that the system is unnecessarily complex, we must consider why it has been constructed in such a way. While I do not dispute that the current Prime Minister—the previous Chancellor—may be attracted to complexity for its own sake, a far more likely explanation is that the Government were determined to micro-manage the incomes of millions of Britons. Some have speculated that this was for ideological reasons. Others have said that it was to make people think that they were in some way dependent on the Government's staying in power. The most innocent explanation is that the Government wished to create a system that did not waste money and targeted help where it was needed, even if that has not been achieved in practice. This is not the place to speculate on which motive was most likely, as more important issues are at stake.
	The most important issue is that this very heavy means testing has imposed high marginal rates of taxation on many low-income families and has therefore undermined the incentive for parents to take on a job, work more hours or move up the career ladder. The Treasury itself says that
	"worklessness and low pay are the biggest direct causes of poverty...a child's risk of being in poverty falls from 58 per cent. to 14 per cent. when one or both their parents is working".
	An illustration of how many people suffer such disincentives is the fact that more than 2 million working people in the UK stand to lose, in a vicious combination of increased taxes and cuts in their benefits, more than half of any increase in earnings that they make. The abolition of the 10p tax rate will exacerbate this situation even further. Notwithstanding the compensation package that has been forced out of the Government, the number will rise to more than 2.25 million.
	If we take the problem of high marginal taxation at its most extreme, some 160,000 people in Britain would keep less than 10p of each extra £1 that they earned. To put that into perspective, that is three times the entire population of Inverness. For working an extra hour, often in hard jobs, those people would earn only a few more pennies.
	The high rates of marginal taxation have led the Institute of Fiscal Studies to conclude that although the Government's over-reliance on means-tested benefits may reduce measured child poverty in the short term,
	"its indirect effect may be to increase poverty through weakening incentives for parents to work".
	In short, I very much accept that tax credits are an essential part of modern welfare policy, but I want to see them simplified, and the disincentives to work that are the unintended consequence of the system reduced.
	I also want to see much better support for people looking to get back into work, with effective practices adapted from other countries and an expectation that the unemployed, if able to do so, will take part in welfare-to-work programmes.

Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman mentions incentives to work. Do the lessons that the Conservatives are learning come from Wisconsin in the United States, which provides huge incentives to work, because people there get no money unless they do?

David Mundell: The hon. Lady has chosen to characterise the Wisconsin scheme in a way that meets her political objectives rather than according to the facts. We will bring forward comprehensive policies to encourage people to move from welfare to work.
	Tax credits may be an essential part of a modern welfare policy, but they are not the only approach, and the Government have rather neglected the others. Particularly, they have failed to see that correcting the symptoms of poverty, such as low wages, has to be complemented by attacking the root causes of poverty, including educational failure, family breakdown, indebtedness, drug abuse and crime. How the Government and Scottish Government can do that will form the second part of my contribution.
	Of course, the education system in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I shall therefore not dwell too long on the subject save to mention its importance in the context of this debate and to give a short synopsis of what my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament have said on the issues.
	The education system is important to this debate because its products are the parents of tomorrow. If they can get themselves established in a skilled job when they leave education, when they go on to have children those children are unlikely to grow up in poverty. As poverty is a generational issue, their children's children, too, will have their risk of growing up in poverty dramatically reduced.
	Unfortunately, the Scottish schools system fails to set many children on the path towards a skilled job or further study. Indeed, a higher proportion of young people are not in education, employment or training in Scotland than in any region of England, or any other country in the OECD. This represents an enormous waste of human potential, and has been estimated by the Scottish Government to cost as much as £1 billion per annum.
	I believe that that is the legacy of decisions stretching back many years over how our education system should operate. Those decisions were often made to satisfy left-wing ideology or notions of political correctness, rather than being based on pragmatic consideration of what worked best for the children. The one-size-fits-all approach must be left in the past. Ironically, the efforts of the left to help the poor have often been counterproductive. It is time that vocational education in particular was opened up to those in their early teens who are not interested in, or not suited to, the current curriculum.
	As for family breakdown, what we say and do in Westminster has a great effect in Scotland. Scotland has one of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe, yet the Prime Minister's tax credit system penalises couples for staying together. Couples with children can receive more money by living apart, or claiming to live apart. The cost of the so-called couple penalty can reach into the thousands. The Government's policies discriminate so heavily against families with two parents that it is harder for couple families to escape poverty. As a result, the risk of poverty has hardly changed for children in two-parent families since 1997, and rose last year from 21 to 23 per cent. across the UK. In addition, 60 per cent. of poor children live in couple families.
	Based on the experience of similar schemes abroad, the Conservatives are confident that our radical welfare reform programme will return at least 600,000 people to work—enough to pay the cost of ending the couple penalty. That will mean that 1.8 million of the poorest couples with children will gain on average £32 a week and 300,000 children in two-parent families will be lifted out of poverty. The long-term effects will be greater still, as it is the first truly significant proposal to reduce family breakdown in a generation.
	On debt, I welcome the forthcoming inquiry by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs into the credit union system, as it can make a significant contribution. Debt is a serious problem for millions. Furthermore, it could easily become a problem in the future for even more people. An energy crisis, a recession in the US, global terrorism or a substantial fall in house prices could change the economic climate, plunging many more people into a severe debt crisis.
	Debt is a particular problem for people on low incomes. With few savings to fall back on and still little or no access to mainstream banking facilities, they are more vulnerable than other income groups to unexpected changes. As the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green entitled "Breakthrough Britain" said, possible solutions to the debt crisis include improving financial literacy, providing more information and more accessibility to savings for low-income families, strengthening the role of credit unions and increasing competition in the home credit market. This could be matched by more transparency of interest rates and charges, better regulation of the advertising of credit, data sharing among lenders and greater care in lending practices, particularly for low-income families.
	Finally, drug abuse and crime are issues for the Scottish Government, but I point out, particularly to Members from the Scottish National party, that the Conservative group in the Scottish Parliament forced the minority SNP Administration into developing a drug strategy for Scotland and putting a real 500 extra police on the beat, by making that a precondition for supporting the Administration's Budget.
	I have already mentioned the "Breakthrough Britain" report produced by the Centre for Social Justice, but I am sure that many Members are aware that a specific study on Glasgow was undertaken by the centre. Greater Glasgow is an area that impacts significantly on the poverty statistics for Scotland, and it is right that it was chosen for such a study. As I said in my opening remarks, I was particularly pleased that Glasgow city council and others who are usually described as "stakeholders" gave this important report such a warm welcome. The report praised at some length the burgeoning number of voluntary projects and workers who were
	"battling largely unsung in their efforts to rebuild the lives of the many people left behind by Glasgow's economic rebirth".
	It is all too easy to look at just what the Government are doing, but we should never forget the impact of charities, faith-based organisations and even individual acts of kindness in the fight against poverty. They can be more responsive to local needs than central Government. Third-sector groups often achieve excellent value for money.
	Community groups are especially valuable, as they are well placed to put people with experience of poverty into the front line of action against it. I was struck recently when the Church and Society Council of the Church of Scotland said on its annual visit to Westminster that, just as the civil rights struggle in America could not have been won if it had been led by white people, and the feminist movement could not have achieved its aims if it had been led by men, so action against poverty will be truly effective only if it is led by those who have first-hand experience of poverty.
	Tax credits are an essential part of modern welfare policy, but as I have said, I want to see them simplified, and the disincentives to work, which are the unintended consequence of the system, cut back. I also want to see much better support for people looking to get back into work, with effective practices adapted from other countries and an expectation that the unemployed are to take part in welfare-to-work programmes.
	Most important, much more focus should be put on preventing the root causes of poverty. This means tackling educational failure, family breakdown, indebtedness, drug abuse and crime. I also want to see the UK's devolved and local government support voluntary and community groups in their efforts against poverty, even if that means giving up some control.
	Sir Winston Churchill, who is always worth a mention, summed up welfare policy in two images when he talked about a ladder—
	"We are for the ladder. Let all try their best to climb"—
	and a net below which none should fall. It is time to reinterpret those images for the 21st century, and I hope that this debate will contribute something towards doing that.

Mohammad Sarwar: I thank the Government for initiating this important debate, and for their positive response to the Scottish Affairs Committee report on child poverty in Scotland. Tackling child poverty is the key to creating a fairer society. We have a responsibility to help children who are living without the essentials that so many of us take for granted. We must take the opportunity to break the cycle of deprivation, in which poverty is handed down from parents to children. That will help not only today's children, but generations to come.
	The Scottish Affairs Committee's recent inquiry on child poverty in Scotland discovered that there are 250,000 children living in poverty in Scotland today. In such a rich country, it is unacceptable for any children to grow up deprived of the opportunity to have a rich and full childhood. That is why the UK Government have committed themselves to halving child poverty by 2010, and to eliminating child poverty entirely by 2020. Those are ambitious targets, but good progress has been made over the past 10 years. In 1997, child poverty rates were at record levels. Since then, child poverty in Scotland has been reduced by a quarter, meaning that more than 100,000 Scottish children are no longer living in poverty. That has been achieved by raising family incomes through the introduction of the national minimum wage, as well as through targeted programmes such as the child tax credit programme.
	Our witnesses were unanimous in welcoming the reduction in child poverty in Scotland, which many of them attributed to Government policies and a significant increase in resources. It is estimated that state financial support for children in the UK has grown by 52 per cent. in real terms since 1999. Written evidence submitted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stated:
	"There can be no doubt that government policy has played a major part in the reductions in child poverty in Scotland".
	Giving oral evidence to the Committee, the head of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, Mr. John Dickie, said that
	"the progress in child poverty has reflected the political will and investment that has gone into tackling it."
	It now appears that all parties, including the Conservative party, agree that there is a need to tackle child poverty. That is a welcome development. In our report, the Scottish Affairs Committee stressed the importance of co-ordination to the fight against child poverty. The UK Government and the Scottish Government must continue to work together on that. Scottish local government also has a vital role to play, providing key services such as education and child care.
	To make the most of the resources dedicated to fighting poverty, a joined-up approach is needed, integrating the services provided by the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and local authorities. In fact, my Committee's inquiry found that Scotland has done better at reducing child poverty than the UK as a whole. Some of that success may be due to the productive way in which the UK Government have worked in partnership with the Scottish Executive since 1999.
	That has allowed anti-poverty strategies to be tailored to local needs. Such co-operation needs to continue in future. I am glad that the Minister has expressed her desire to work in co-operation with the Scottish Government, and I hope Scottish national party Members in the House will urge the Scottish Government to recognise that co-operation, not confrontation, will help to resolve the vital issues that our communities face in Scotland. Of course, we would like to spread Scotland's success more widely. We hope that the UK Government can learn lessons from the strategies that have been successful in Scotland and use them to benefit children throughout the UK.
	Although much has been done, a lot remains to be achieved. The Committee report found that the reduction of child poverty was in danger of slowing down. In order to reach the target of halving child poverty by 2010, we found that the Government would need to match, if not surpass, the level of resources and of commitment of the past decade. I am pleased by the recent announcement in the Budget of an additional £1 billion per year to families through additional tax credits and child benefit. These measures renew the fight against poverty and will lift up to 250,000 more children out of poverty across the UK.
	That has rightly been welcomed by many organisations that take a keen interest in child poverty in Scotland, including Barnardo's Scotland and the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland. However, we should not underestimate the scale of the task that faces us in eradicating child poverty. The very poorest children are living in families with less than 30 per cent. of the national average income or about £130 per week. The Committee was concerned to hear evidence that up to 80,000 children living in the severest poverty in Scotland may have been left behind by the recent reduction in child poverty rates. Those are the children in greatest need. We must make sure that their welfare is our first priority.
	Child poverty is a result of the family circumstances in which children live. Financial measures such as tax credits and child benefit go some way towards raising family incomes, but there are other considerations. As the Government have recognised, getting more people into work and making work pay is the best way to raise income levels, but child care is a barrier to work for many parents. Our inquiry found that parents may be prevented from taking a job because they cannot find affordable or suitable local child care. That is an even greater challenge for parents of disabled children.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is right when he states that the objective is to get people back into work in order to alleviate poverty. Has he any views or comments about the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax? If that is taken away, people who find their way back into employment could find themselves in further and worse poverty.

Mohammad Sarwar: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware that since 1997 the Government, through their positive approach, have taken millions of people, including children, out of poverty. Three million more people are employed. I know that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—the Conservatives and the Scottish national party—are obsessed with the 10p tax rate, but in his letter to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor confirmed that all those who will be disadvantaged because of the abolition of the 10p tax rate will be compensated.
	Our inquiry found that parents can be prevented from taking a job because they cannot find affordable or suitable local child care. The challenge is even greater for parents of disabled children. It also found that 80 per cent. of mothers with a disabled child are unemployed, and that disabled children are twice as likely to be in poverty as non-disabled children. Disabled people experience poverty of income, choice and opportunity. The Scottish Government should do more to ensure that resources reach disabled families, who are disproportionately affected by poverty. That is a massive issue, which I hope the Scottish nationalists will pass on to the Scottish Government so that the money allocated for families of the disabled reaches the most needy in our communities.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the concordat into which the Scottish Government and local authorities entered is aimed at allowing those authorities to use the money in the best way possible for their areas? It is not a question of taking money away; the ring-fencing is being taken away, and that is a different matter.

Mohammad Sarwar: I accept entirely that it is for the Scottish Government to decide how they want to spend the money. However, our inquiry found that disabled people suffer worst from child poverty. That is why our report urges the Scottish Government to do more to help the families of the disabled in Scotland.

Tom Clarke: Will my hon. Friend, along with me, invite our Scottish National party colleagues to accept not only that he, I and others consider that our Government got it wrong on the 10p rate and are putting it right, but that the Edinburgh Executive got it wrong on disabled children? Will they help us to put that right?

Mohammad Sarwar: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the Executive will do the right thing—apologise and allocate the resources to the disabled people and their families in Scotland.
	Work can provide a route out of poverty, but only if there are good-quality jobs with decent career paths and reliable incomes above the poverty line. Many children living in poverty in Scotland come from households in which at least one parent is working. To continue to reduce child poverty, we must tackle the problem of low pay, promote job retention and create advancement. The tax and benefit system is an important safety net. As a minimum, we must make sure that no one in full-time work is living in poverty; that applies not only to parents, but to young single adults, who are the parents of tomorrow.
	Our report on child poverty in Scotland emphasised the importance of simplifying the welfare system, which is still too complicated. Child tax credits have been a key factor in reducing child poverty, but the process of claiming them is complex, and we know that many people do not claim the money to which they are entitled. The tax and benefit system must be flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of families and must make it easy for people to move into work, when they find a job, without losing out.
	During its inquiry, my Committee had difficulty in obtaining disaggregated poverty statistics for Scotland. In some cases, only UK-wide figures were available. We urge the Government and others to publish a breakdown of statistics whenever possible. My Committee was concerned by the evidence that we received that children living in the severest poverty in Scotland may not have fully benefited from the recent reductions in child poverty rates. The poorest children are not helped if the Government meet their targets by reaching only those just below the poverty line—a strategy that would also endanger the Government's longer-term targets for the total eradication of child poverty. That view is shared by Save the Children and many other organisations.
	Major progress has been made in reducing child poverty in Scotland during the past 10 years, and my Committee wants to see that progress continue in the next 10 years. We intend to ensure that child poverty remains high on the political agenda in Scotland and throughout the UK. During our inquiry, it was brought to our attention that debt is a major contributory factor to poverty in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. We were astonished to learn that our financial institutions, moneylenders, and building societies charge interest rates of up to 100 per cent., and impose very high penalty and service charges. I passionately believe that there should be a cap placed on the banks and financial institutions, and that the courts should be given powers to decide whether banks and building societies are charging fairly those who are most vulnerable, needy and poor in our communities. It is sad to note that financial institutions are exploiting the most vulnerable in our society. I hope and wish that the Government will seriously concentrate on tackling that problem. We are not talking about loan sharks, but about legal moneylenders that are exploiting poor people in our society.
	It is nice to see many members of my Committee here today. I am grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell); I am not sure whether they were good for my political career. The hon. Gentleman is a very important member of my Committee. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Conservative party spent more than £1 million on Scotland in the general election, which produced one Conservative Member. The hon. Gentleman is therefore the most expensive member of my Committee, and the most expensive Member of the House, so I am grateful for his kind words. Once again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Alan Reid: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), and I congratulate him and his Select Committee on producing its excellent and well-researched reports on poverty in Scotland and on child poverty in Scotland. I also welcome the Government's allocation of this afternoon for this debate.
	The extent of child poverty in Scotland has reduced in recent years—there is no doubt about that—but despite that reduction, the level is still high by international standards. One in four children, or 250,000, live in poverty, 90 per cent. of them in severe poverty. The statistics also deliver the disappointing news that the good rate of progress achieved in recent years is slowing and, with the UK economy facing a slowdown with poor growth forecasts, concerted action is needed at all levels of government to lift children out of poverty.
	Poverty is neither a reserved matter nor a devolved one. To tackle it we need co-operation between all levels of government—the UK and Scottish Governments, local authorities, community groups, and charities, and we must work with those who find themselves on low incomes. Action to tackle child poverty necessarily targets parents, attempting to lift children out of poverty by raising family incomes. We also need to increase the incomes of young single adults because they are the parents of the future.
	Concerted action must be taken by all levels of government. However, today I want to concentrate on the reserved powers—mainly the tax and benefit system. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion throughout the UK to tackle child poverty, but that is £2.5 billion less than what most independent estimates believe is required to meet the Government target of eradicating child poverty by 2020. More needs to be done.
	Specific measures that need to be taken include increasing child benefit and reforming the tax credit system by making the overpayment rules fairer and taking higher earners out of it altogether. We would increase child benefit by £5 for the first child, thus making all families £250 a year better off. That would take about 15,000 Scottish children out of poverty. It would also reach all families, including those who do not claim tax credits. The take-up rate of tax credits is only about 80 per cent., whereas that of child benefit is nearly 100 per cent.
	The tax credit system needs to be reformed to increase stability and reduce overpayments. We need to return to fixed, six-monthly awards so that people keep the money that is given to them. We should also reverse the burden of proof when overpayments are caused by official errors, introduce a right of appeal to an independent tribunal and simplify the complicated awards notices.
	We have all met constituents who say that they will never apply for tax credits again because of the debt into which they were forced by being overpaid through no fault of their own. The system must be reformed to give everyone confidence in it instead of causing debt and stress to many on low incomes. Tax credits should also be focused more on those on low incomes by increasing the taper rate and removing the right of high earners to them.
	Doubling the 10p rate of income tax has obviously hit those on low incomes. We hear about a compensation package but many are not aware of their entitlement to tax credits and I hope that the Government will explain how the promised compensation scheme will take into account those who are entitled to tax credits but do not claim them. The 10p tax hits them, too.
	It is significant that a high proportion of parents with a disabled child are unemployed, and disabled children are twice as likely to live in poverty as children without disabilities. The parents of disabled children often find it harder to get child care and more needs to be done to help those families find it.
	More effort must go into improving the take-up of tax credits and benefits and helping people find work.

Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my genuine thanks to members of the Liberal Democrat party who took part in the review on disabled children. He must be as disappointed as I am about the implications so far in Scotland. However, I thank those Liberal Democrats.

Alan Reid: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. Yes, we are disappointed and urge the Scottish National party Government to review that part of their policy.
	To assist the take-up of credits and benefits and help people find work, we would replace Jobcentre Plus with a new first steps agency—a single, one-stop shop for all benefit and tax credit claims. The front-line staff should be equipped with basic knowledge of the tax credits and benefits system so that they can assess whether a household is claiming its full entitlement and give advice. The new agency would also engage with the private and voluntary sectors to provide high quality, tailored, back-to-work support.
	Jobcentres have an important role, but they must be located in local communities, where the staff understand local circumstances, not in large call centres. In the past four years, the number of staff in jobcentres in my constituency has almost halved as jobs have been transferred to call centres. The pattern has been repeated throughout Scotland. That is a double blow to jobs in rural areas. First, it removes Government jobs and, secondly, it takes away valuable local knowledge, which could help local people find jobs. To many jobseekers, a phone call to a call centre is no substitute for a face-to-face discussion with someone with local knowledge. That is particularly true in constituencies such as mine, where the islands create special circumstances that those in call centres often simply cannot understand. The Government should reverse their misguided policy. They should transfer Government jobs to rural areas, not take them away.

Sandra Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unreasonable to expect people with mobile phones rather than land lines to pay to contact such call centres?

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important point and I agree with her.

David Cairns: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman provided the House with a rough estimate of how much it would cost to give every community in Scotland a new super jobcentre that combined work on tax credits and assessments.

Alan Reid: We would utilise the jobcentres and buildings that are already there, but the Government are taking staff away. Almost half the jobcentre staff in my constituency have been lost in recent years, owing to transfers to the call centre at Clydebank.
	I want to talk about the problems caused by the world energy crisis that people on low incomes face. Paying their fuel bills, both to keep their homes warm and to travel, is a serious problem for people on low incomes. To help tackle the problems that people on low incomes face in keeping their homes warm, the energy companies should be forced to use some of their huge windfall profits to ensure that all poor and vulnerable people have access to cheap social tariffs. The higher utility pre-payment charges should be abolished. It is a scandal that people with pre-payment meters should pay more for their fuel than those who have access to direct debits. We should work for the swift roll-out of smart meters in every home, so that people can have more control over their energy consumption.

Michael Weir: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. Like me, he represents a rural area, so does he recognise another aspect of fuel poverty, which is that many people in our rural areas rely on oil-fired heating, which has rocketed in price? That is causing problems for people in rural areas. Although there is perhaps less help for those with electricity and gas problems than there should be, there is currently no help at all for people with oil-fired heating.

Alan Reid: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He raises a serious problem.
	The charging regime for meters should be reversed, so that the first units of energy consumed are the cheapest, unlike under the current system, where people who use small amounts of electricity and gas often pay a higher unit cost. The availability of low-cost energy conservation measures should be extended and the winter fuel allowance should be extended to those on higher-rate disability benefits.
	Another respect in which the rising price of fuel causes tremendous problems for people on low incomes is through rapidly rising transport costs for those who live in our remote communities. The Scottish Affairs Committee was absolutely correct when it said:
	"It is too easy to assume that poverty in Scotland is limited to deprived urban areas, made visible by problems such as poor housing or graffiti."
	Poverty exists in rural communities as well as urban ones, often in homes off the beaten track and not noticed by those who come to look at the marvellous scenery. The Committee was right to state that
	"poverty in rural areas is exacerbated by specific factors including the availability and quality of employment opportunities, transport costs and a dispersed population."
	High fuel prices deliver a triple whammy to people living in remote areas. First, petrol and diesel cost more than in urban areas. Secondly, people have further to drive to get to work or the shops. Thirdly, there is a lack of public transport alternatives. The rising cost of transport makes it more difficult to sustain businesses and can sometimes mean that a low-paid job is not worth taking, owing to the cost of travel to and from work.
	As well as removing opportunities for parents to earn money, the high cost of transport can lead to social exclusion for many children living in poverty. Children living in remote communities need to travel to meet other children of their age and engage in social pursuits such as sport, playing in bands and singing in choirs. The highlands and islands have a rich heritage of music and songs. Bands and choirs have to travel great distances to take part in concerts and competitions, but the rapidly rising cost of fuel makes fundraising for the pipe band, the Gaelic choir and the football or shinty team much more daunting.

Angus MacNeil: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the rising cost of fuel. Is he minded to support the Scottish National party's idea of a fuel price regulator?

Alan Reid: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall come to that issue shortly.
	There is a risk that children from the poorest homes will miss out when it comes to teams, choirs and bands because of the higher cost of fuel. They might therefore miss out on an important part of growing up.
	I was delighted that the Committee urged
	"the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and local authorities to consider ways in which the high costs of transport in rural areas can be alleviated."
	It is urgently necessary that that recommendation be taken on board. Those of us who represent Scotland's remote communities tabled amendments to the previous two Finance Bills, on Report, for a lower rate of fuel duty in remote communities. We will table similar amendments this year. The Government would not accept our amendments to the previous two Bills, and the Conservative party sat on its hands, but the situation is now critical. I hope that, this year, both the Government and the Conservative party will take the Committee's recommendations on board and support amendments that would allow fuel duty to be charged at a reduced rate in remote communities.
	I have been focusing on powers reserved to the UK Government, but I now want to draw the House's attention to two disastrous SNP policies that will increase poverty in many parts of the highlands and islands. First, the SNP reversed the plans of the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition at Holyrood for a 40 per cent. ferry fare discount for passengers who live on many of our islands and peninsulas. That is a complete scandal, as those discounts were targeted at passengers, not cars, and would have helped the poorest islanders with their travel costs.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Reid: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he will explain why he believes that poor children from Colonsay should not get that 40 per cent. discount when they travel to the mainland.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands for eight years. Does he welcome the fact that the SNP is introducing a road equivalent tariff to Coll and Tiree?

Alan Reid: I certainly welcome its extension to Coll and Tiree. Originally, it was meant only for the Western Isles, and I have campaigned for its extension to the whole of my constituency. However, cheap ferry fares are needed to all the Scottish islands and peninsulas, not just those that the hon. Gentleman represents.

Katy Clark: On that point, I fully appreciate why the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) might be very grateful for the scheme that the Scottish Government have brought in, but my constituents who use the lifeline services to Arran and Cumbrae are seeing significant increases in ferry prices. There seems to be discrimination in the way in which the measures are being applied. We are seeing ferry price increases of about 29 per cent. A great deal of party politics seem to be being played on this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever measures are introduced should be fair to all communities in Scotland?

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is perfectly correct. Cheap ferry fares should be available to all islands and peninsulas, not just those that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) represents.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Reid: I shall give him one more chance to explain why ferry users from Colonsay have to pay high fares, while his constituents get off with cheaper fares.

Angus MacNeil: Perhaps a more pertinent question would be: why did the hon. Gentleman's party wait for eight years? The Liberal Democrats, who were in power with the Labour party for eight years, did absolutely nothing for the good people of Colonsay. We now have a pilot scheme going in the Western Isles that will, in turn, I hope, help the good people of Colonsay. That has come from the SNP, but the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that I might be taking my life into my hands, but I venture to suggest that we are getting into a little too much technical detail and moving away from the general theme of the debate.

Alan Reid: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will move on. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar wants to find the answer, he should read my letter in this week's  Oban Times.
	Another example of where the Scottish National party is contributing to poverty in the highlands and islands is by cutting the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise—the local agency that helps businesses, particularly those just getting off the ground, in the highlands and islands. The SNP cuts mean that fewer jobs are available, a grim prospect when the forecast is for an economic showdown—I mean slowdown.

David Cairns: Or even showdown, who knows? The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that issues of poverty are neither devolved nor reserved and that we need to work together. He will know that an initiative for these areas that was begun by Lord Forsyth was the Convention of the Highlands and Islands. Since its inception and particularly since devolution, it has looked at which issues should be devolved and which reserved; many of the decisions on issues affecting the highlands and islands are still taken here. Does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation, other than sheer spite, of why the new SNP Administration have cut Westminster out of the Convention of the Highlands and Islands, depriving people in the highlands and islands of the opportunity to put to Westminster Ministers many of the issues that he has rightly highlighted?

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Like him, I can think of no good reason, and I wonder whether any SNP Members want to answer.
	Travel costs are very important in rural areas and they must be reduced. Valuable services such as jobcentres and post offices must also be retained in our more remote communities so that sources of help and advice are available to be accessed close at hand. All policies should be rural-proofed to ensure that the level of poverty in rural communities is not increased. All levels of government have to co-operate with the right policies to eradicate poverty from both urban and rural communities by 2020. It is a difficult task, but a vital one. With the policies I outlined earlier, I believe that that important goal can be achieved.

Sandra Osborne: I begin by congratulating the Scottish Affairs Committee on its valuable work on poverty. It is some years since I was a member of that Select Committee and a great deal of work has been done subsequently. We all know that the life chances of too many Scots have been strangled at birth, so it is timely to take a look at how far we have come, what progress has been made and where there is room for improvement.
	It was Labour in opposition that led the assault on the scourge of poverty under the Tories; it was Labour that provided a detailed analysis of the root causes of poverty under the Tories; and only Labour had the underlying values and ideology to address poverty in government and to make real progress in tackling poverty in Scotland and in the UK more widely.
	Child poverty is of the utmost importance because in eradicating it we are paving the way for a society in which for the first time every child has a chance in life—a chance that will not lead to a dead end. Childhood poverty leads, for the most part, to lifelong poverty. Even those who escape financial poverty are left with the scars, which is why we hear so many Scots from working-class communities saying that they will never forget where they came from.
	As we have heard from many hon. Members today, poverty needs to be addressed in all its aspects, because they are all interlinked. Unemployment, low pay, pensioner poverty, family poverty, women in poverty, the disabled, poor housing, deprivation, education, class and inequality, poverty and ill health are all connected and must all be addressed. Labour has recognised for decades how important all those issues are, but only when in power has it been able to start to do something about them. Therein lies a lesson for us all on the Labour side.
	We have heard the statistics that show how well the Government are doing in tackling child poverty. We have heard about the record rises in child benefit, with 600,000 taken out of poverty—impacting even more in Scotland, which started out with higher poverty levels. As we have heard, that has received a warm welcome from many organisations in civil society in Scotland, including Barnardo's, the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Church of Scotland and Save the Children. Statistics can be boring, but they matter to the individuals whom they affect: the person who has seen his or her income rise substantially thanks to the minimum wage, or the lone parent who now has a living wage thanks to the working tax credit and affordable child care. The Government's approach has been, and as we have heard from the Minister will continue to be, targeted support for those who need it most, work for those who can, breaking the cycle of deprivation, and delivering high-quality public services. That is a long-term approach that will bring about long-term change, to offer every individual and every generation the opportunity and support to raise and fulfil their aspirations.
	Where I grew up, we had few aspirations and even less chance of realising them. Then the Tories came along, and we were completely scuppered. It is a positive fact that the aspirations of most young people now are entirely different from the hopelessness of the 1980s. Scotland has moved on, but still too many are left behind. We are making a difference, as the Select Committee's report acknowledges. When the Government are criticised, it is usually for not doing enough, and not doing it quickly enough, not for doing nothing, as was the case with previous Tory Governments.
	The Committee's report and the many organisations that have briefed us for this debate all make the point that progress has stalled, so that must be our main focus. Nevertheless, it never does any harm to highlight, as a starting point, what has been achieved and can be built on. It seems that there is a consensus now that it is not a question of if, but how and when. What a change that is from the days in poverty under the Conservative party, which seems to have a new-found concern for the issue. As other hon. Members have said, that is certainly welcome, but will they put their money where their mouth is and commit to public spending on the issue? In Scotland, will the Scottish Government make the hard decisions needed to protect the most vulnerable in our country, who are not always popular causes, or will they play to the gallery?
	I can remember standing outside jobcentres in the '80s, gathering information on jobs advertised at 80p an hour, in the fight against low pay. In 1997, my predecessor Phil Gallie said that it was okay for someone to be paid £1.50 an hour if that is what the market dictates. That is why it was no imposition for me—unlike some other hon. Members—to stay up all night to see the national minimum wage passed through the House. But I also say to the Government that that is why there is unfinished business such as the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, which practically all Labour Back Benchers were here on a Friday to support. We all look forward to its being passed, because it is part of the jigsaw—it is about not just fairness but tackling child poverty. As the Committee says in its report, where work is of poor quality, low- paid, short-term or seasonal, in-work poverty is a real prospect.
	I remember when, as a young mother, a pre-school nursery place in Scotland could not be got for love or money. There was not one recognition from the then Government that child care or nursery provision had anything to do with them. The Tory Government thought that it was all down to the family—of course, they could all afford nannies. It is a proud achievement that pre-school education is now a statutory obligation; it is just as well, because otherwise it would be likely to be cut, as happened in the past.
	I was disappointed to read the comments yesterday of my Labour colleague, Scottish MSP Rhona Brankin, that the Scottish Government look set to water down a commitment to the provision of more nursery teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has said, the money for nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds will not now be found.
	We all know that poverty is also gender-specific. While we support lone parents back into work, we should also remember that women and men are still paid on an unequal basis. It has been shown that equal pay will not happen on a voluntary basis, and we now need statutory equal pay audits. Equal pay would go a long way towards helping with child poverty.
	As the Committee said, there is more to do, and its report outlines several recommendations that are well worthy of consideration if the target to halve child poverty by 2010 is to be met. I agree with its finding that we should consider the equalisation of child benefit for all children and families, as suggested by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), especially given the impact that that would have in lifting a further 30,000 children out of poverty. However, that prompts the eternal question of targeted benefits versus universal benefits. As we are all aware, everybody gets child benefit but it does not necessarily target resources in the best way. Contrary to what I have heard in this House several times recently, take-up of tax credits for families with children is higher than under any previous system of income-related support for in-work families, with take-up among those with incomes of less than £10,000 now at 97 per cent. in the UK, according to the Government's figures. It may be that increasing tax credits would be the best way to tackle poverty by releasing resources to those who need them most.
	Last week, the church and society council of the Church of Scotland met us in the House. The council has made proposals on tackling debt, focusing on the need to find alternatives to the high-interest doorstep lenders who often target families with young children. It calls for an effective, flexible alternative through the social fund and supports the Committee's recommendation of empowering courts to fix a reasonable cap on interest rates, as in many other European countries. I know of other areas where such help has been extended through the voluntary sector by a crisis loan facility for priority debts paid through the local credit union. That has proved to be a very effective mechanism, and I would like the Government to give consideration to how it can be promoted.
	We need to heed the Save the Children report, which shows that the poorest families pay £1,000 per year more for services because they do not have access to low-cost credit, fair banking or direct debit; and we are only too well aware of the extra costs of prepayment meters for fuel. I welcome the fact that Ofgem is considering that, and we all hope that this unfairness will be ended. We also need the restoration and expansion of free-to-use ATMs, not just the offers made in recent times by the very banks who removed them in the first place.
	We must take seriously evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that the present system of uprating tax credits, benefits and allowances lags behind average incomes every year. That is reinforced by the Child Poverty Action Group's view that the minimum wage, in-work tax credit and benefit support must be raised so that no child in a working family is left in poverty. Most of the charities have endorsed the Committee's view that the tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no one in full-time work is living in poverty. Almost half the children in poverty are in families in paid work. I welcome the pilots that will start in the autumn of the better off in work credit to ensure that everyone who has been claiming benefits for at least six months sees a gain from working of at least £25 per week. That is a modest measure, but it is a recognition that work, as the best route out of poverty, will be of benefit only if it is worth while working in the first place.
	The Government have laid the foundation for the eradication of child poverty, and the direction of travel is now well established. However, I would like to raise with the Minister a couple of issues that have arisen in my constituency and are pertinent to the debate as well as to those living on a fixed income throughout the country.
	First, I am grateful to Dr. Calum McCabe, one of our local GPs, who has brought to my attention a problem experienced by some of his patients in accessing benefits by phone. As we all know, many people on fixed incomes do not have landlines and instead use pay-as-you-go mobile phones. They may be more expensive in the long term but, like prepayment meters, they are used because they mean that people on fixed incomes do not run up bills. Many Government-run helplines—such as the ones for tax credits, benefits inquiries and the social fund—use numbers with the 0845 prefix that are assumed to be free or local-rate numbers. However, mobile network operators connect customers to the services at premium rates, with the result that low-income users who have no access to a landline incur disproportionate costs in accessing taxpayer-funded services.
	I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 1285, which has been signed by 65 hon. Members of all parties. It calls on the Government to bring in legislation so that the numbers are genuinely free to all users. It also asks the Government to look into providing free of charge at the point of use all essential Government-run helplines for which no alternative face-to-face service is provided.
	Secondly, I want to refer to a constituent who lost her partner of 24 years in a tragic accident. They had two children, who are now aged seven and two. Although they were not married, they had been together since schooldays and their relationship outlasted many marriages. She sought financial help from the Government through the bereavement payment and the widow's parent's allowance. In a very blunt telephone call, she was informed that she had a very slim chance of success, as 99.6 per cent. of claims fail. She was told that, if she wished to proceed with the claim, she would be interviewed by two assessors. She would also have to furnish them with cards that showed that she and her partner had been related as husband and wife. Finally, three witnesses would be questioned about their belief that the couple were married.
	It beggars belief that anyone should be subjected to such an insensitive, intrusive and discriminatory process at such a vulnerable time in her life.

Alistair Carmichael: A constituent of mine has been in exactly the same position and has experienced exactly the same treatment. The test that is applied was used in the past to establish whether a marriage under Scottish common law—that is, marriage
	"by cohabitation, with habit and repute".
	It is nonsensical to use that as a test for a benefit. Will the hon. Lady join me in encouraging the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), to take an urgent look at that test? It is out of date, and it causes severe anguish and embarrassment to many constituents.

Sandra Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that I am aware that only people in Scotland can apply for those benefits, thanks to the provisions of Scottish law. People in England cannot do so.
	My constituent feels that a mockery has been made of her family, even though she and her partner worked all their lives and had no recourse to public funds. It is all very well to talk about marriage, but we all know that many couples live together. There are many different family forms in society today, and this debate is about addressing child poverty; it is not about making moral judgments about whether people are married or not. The problem that I have described has lasted a long time, and I do not expect the Minister to solve it today, although I hope that it can be addressed urgently. However, I shall seek the support of colleagues on all sides of the House to try to get the system changed.
	The problem faced by my constituent illustrates how poverty affects people in different ways. It can happen to anyone at any time. People struck by poverty are treated differently, and their children suddenly become vulnerable. Their right to live as they choose can be undermined or taken away. That may seem a small matter in the grand scheme, but life is not all about money—it is also about dignity and respect. Those two qualities deserve more attention from the Government, as in different ways the lack of either can make vulnerable people poorer, whether they are adults or children.
	Generally speaking, however, I believe that the Government have laid the right foundations for tackling poverty, both in this country and, thanks to the work carried out by the Department for International Development, around the world. Part of our core belief is that poverty is an enemy to be taken on and defeated wherever it can be found. I had intended to elaborate on that point, but as a colleague was pulled up earlier for straying too far from the subject, I shall not do so.
	In the past five years, Scotland's health spending has increased by 50 per cent. under Labour. Waiting times are down from 18 months to 18 weeks, and the number of deaths from heart disease has fallen by 30 per cent. With a new emphasis on prevention and a focus on community services, Scots are just as likely to be kept alive and healthy by the paramedic's emergency treatment, the primary care worker who identifies high cholesterol, the teacher who gives a child the basics of a healthy diet, or Government legislation such as the smoking ban as they are by the skilled work of a surgeon.
	Scotland has seen improved services for all, but with a focus on those who need them most. Underpinning all our policies on health is a clear understanding that good health needs good housing, good health needs good education, good health needs full employment and shared prosperity, and good health needs people to be lifted out of poverty. The good health of our children depends on the progress that we make on all those fronts. Year on year, we have invested in health. In fact, Scotland has been ahead of the United Kingdom in terms of health spend. But now, in the short time during which the Scottish National party has been in charge in Scotland, we are falling behind. The SNP's increase in health spend is half that of Labour.
	An issue that concerns me at present is the impact of the new report on national health service resource allocation in Scotland, which was produced by the NHSScotland resource allocation committee and is now with the Scottish Government. It proposes replacing the Arbuthnott index, which takes deprivation and poverty factors into account when determining resources, with a new formula that will not take unemployment rates into account as an indicator for the additional-needs element, with the result that in my area, Ayrshire and Arran, the NHS stands to lose £5 million in its annual allocation. That was challenged in evidence given to the committee by the Scottish directors of public health, who argued that unemployment rates were a relevant factor in themselves in the assessment of health needs in an area—not just for those who are unemployed, but as an indicator of additional need throughout the geographical area. They have been ignored.
	The link between health and poverty cannot be taken for granted. Many of us remember how hard we had to fight for it to be recognised in the first place. We should not accept anything that dilutes that link when we still have a Scotland where twice as many children in poorer areas die in infancy or fall ill as do so in more affluent areas. There is already plenty of evidence that the SNP will talk a good game about the priority of health, but ultimately constitutional wrangling will always be their chief end. Good health, better housing and better care services are pawns in their game of picking fights with Westminster. In Scotland, Labour will have to take up again the role that it played in the Thatcher years, and be there for the NHS. We cannot assume that it will be safe in the hands of the SNP.
	As many have said today, tackling poverty in Scotland requires a partnership between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Lady welcome the fact that accident and emergency units were saved by the SNP Government?

Sandra Osborne: I do, but unfortunately they were saved at the expense of a new cancer care unit and two community health facilities which were supposed to bring health care much closer to the community. I certainly do not welcome that loss incurred by my constituents.
	As was acknowledged in the Committee's report, under a Labour leadership we have been able to make real advances in recent years, but with an SNP-led Scottish Government, that has already been put at risk and is starting to unravel in many places. Making a cut in business rates and giving nothing in return may appeal to the Tories as a sensible flagship policy, but it has not given me the sense of an SNP Government prioritising social justice and committed to eradicating poverty. Twinning that with proposals to freeze the council tax without a proper and serious strategy to ensure ongoing support for groups who rely on local government funding may also seem perfectly sensible to the Scottish Tories, but it puts at risk a very successful partnership between national and local government and the voluntary sector to tackle poverty.

David Mundell: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady is saying, and some of her points are very relevant. Perhaps she would explain why her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament abstained on the SNP Government's Budget.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go down that road. I have not heard too much on the specific subject of child poverty in the past few minutes of her speech. I hope that she will bear in mind the fact that other colleagues are anxious to participate in the debate.

Sandra Osborne: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to be as quick as possible, so that other hon. Members may speak.
	Councils in Scotland are already having to make cuts in budgets and services to balance the books, and such problems are worse for councils whose areas have high levels of poverty and population decline. They receive the lowest increase in core grant funding. I am talking about authorities such as East Ayrshire council.
	I understand why councils have welcomed aspects of the concordat, for instance the reduction in ring-fencing, for which many of us have argued over the years. However, a settlement that cuts finance year on year and is some £400 million less than the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimated it required will inevitably mean that councils will have to preserve statutory services at the expense of other priority services that are not statutory—services such as welfare rights and debt advice, and services commissioned from the voluntary sector. Such services together provide vital anti-poverty work that complements the UK's anti-poverty measures. Many of the most innovative projects are in that field—for example, providing support to credit unions, financial literacy activity and providing families with extra form-filling support.
	Parts of my constituency need a major expansion of basic welfare rights and advice services, rather than for those services to be put under threat. For example, South Ayrshire's welfare rights service have been cut, and what is left is under threat. That is hardly the way to ensure income maximisation.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend is listing some of the cuts that are occurring and will affect the most impoverished. Does she realise that just this week I have been contacted by the adult learning partnership in Scotland, which has been told that it is not going to be funded—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has come into the debate just at this juncture, and he makes an intervention when we are talking about child poverty. I do not think that adult learning is directly connected at this particular point.

Michael Connarty: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I so rule.

Sandra Osborne: In conclusion, may I cite the introduction to "Scotland the Real Divide", which was published 25 years ago? It states:
	"Scotland's poor are therefore not poor because they are Scottish; they are poor because, if they are not unemployed, they are in the wrong job, generation, sex or class".
	That publication was of course edited by the Prime Minister and the late Robin Cook. Our strength in achieving what we have already achieved in tackling child poverty and our confidence in our ability to achieve much more—ideally, our target of eliminating child poverty by 2020—is rooted in our values and our analysis. We do not tackle poverty, be it at home in Scotland, in the UK or on the world stage, as a by-product; we tackle it as a priority.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The average length of Back-Bench speeches is running at 22 minutes. There is a limit on our time, and I believe that seven hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. If we go on at that rate, clearly many people will be disappointed. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will hold to the forefront of their minds the fact that this debate is about child poverty.

Angus MacNeil: I hear your words clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker: this debate is about child poverty. I hope that my contribution will be brief, succinct and to the point.
	We serve on a friendly Committee, under the good chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), to whose work I would like to pay tribute. He does a good job, his approach is very inclusive and he is most kind to all Members, regardless of party or political persuasion. That is important to note.
	I would like to say that it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate—but I would much rather not be taking part in such a debate. Such a debate should no longer be necessary, just as debates about children sweeping chimneys need no longer occur. Those are things of the past, and I wish that child poverty, too, was a thing of the past.
	Child poverty in Scotland, or in any European or first-world state, should be a thing of the past. Perhaps if international prestige were measured by the equity of society, or by low levels of child poverty, the nations that currently vie for influence on the world stage might be higher in the UNICEF table covering the well-being of children in rich countries. I refer, of course, to the United States of America and the United Kingdom, which prop up that table, just below some former eastern European bloc states. The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark lead the table, incidentally.
	The conclusions of the report by the Scottish Affairs Committee might be a good place to start. Progress has been made since 1997, and we all recognise and welcome that. Progress continues to be made, although its pace may be slowing. The report states, on page 29, that the 2010 target of lifting 50 per cent. of children out of poverty will be missed, even if the uptake of tax credits improves. We all know about the difficulty of ensuring that targeted benefits hit their target.
	The first recommendation of the report shows concern because there is a slowdown in poverty reduction in the UK, but it should be noted that Scotland is doing a little better. However, much of that apparent success may well be attributable to the poorer baseline from which Scotland started. It is still notable that the rate of child poverty in Scotland is still higher than the average for the UK.
	It is also clear that the main levers to address child poverty are held by the UK Government. That was emphasised by numerous witnesses to the Committee, who said that the UK Government held all the cards. Among those witnesses was Guy Palmer from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, who said:
	"The big policy levers are the non-devolved levers to do with tax and benefits."
	That was echoed by Joe Connolly from NCH, who said:
	"It is not for the Scottish Executive, as it was known, but a UK issue."
	Nevertheless, the Government of Scotland, not content to wait for the adjustments of a lumbering ship of state to deal with the matter, have their own plans to tackle poverty, inequality and deprivation. To be fair to the previous two-party Government in Scotland, they did much the same—or at least tried to. Governments everywhere are united in efforts to reduce child poverty, which is a blight on any society, especially Scottish society. That more than 20 per cent., and perhaps even 25 per cent., of children live in poverty is surely a challenge for us all, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of where we live. This is a problem for nations throughout western Europe.
	Perhaps if we all believed in reincarnation, so that we would have a one in four chance of being caught up in poverty in the next life, we might make more urgent and pressing efforts to address it. I shall leave that for others to ponder—

Alistair Carmichael: It is a bit wide of the report.

Angus MacNeil: That is true.
	The Scottish Government's aim, as part of their economic strategy, is to raise the proportion of income earned by the bottom 30 per cent. by 2017. That is a radical step and would put Scotland at the forefront of efforts to tackle poverty and inequality.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman identifies an aim, not an objective. Having read the report, I did not see any suggestion that an independent Scotland would reduce child poverty. Given that he is a member of the Committee, does he accept that, and if not, why not?

Angus MacNeil: I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Gentleman's last point. Perhaps he would repeat it.

Jim Sheridan: I did not see anywhere in the report the suggestion that an independent Scotland would improve child poverty. As a member of the Committee, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, and if not, why not?

Angus MacNeil: The UNICEF table might provide some help to the hon. Gentleman. Ireland, which has become independent from the United Kingdom, is in the top 10, whereas the United Kingdom is in 21st place out of 21. Perhaps independence would be a useful and successful tool in fighting child poverty.
	As I was saying, the aim is to increase the proportion of income earned by the bottom 30 per cent. We could glibly say that one of the most important factors in fighting poverty is wealth. The relationship between the two came up in a book that was given to me by a lecturer in public health at Aberdeen university, "The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health" by Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce P. Kennedy. The book demonstrates what we all instinctively know: generally, the greater the income inequalities in any country, the worse the health expectancy and life expectancy are in that country. Those problems are, of course, results of poverty.
	While the Scottish Government are aware of the need to increase GDP per capita to that of other countries similar to Scotland, we are also aware that the creation and sharing of wealth need to go hand in hand. If we are to have a society at peace with itself, with optimal health outcomes and the lowest possible poverty rates, that is a laudable aim.
	In my view, we will need powers additional to those that Scotland independently controls. That means that more powers would need to be devolved from Westminster to Holyrood. I am sure that the national conversation and the Calman commission will both be useful to that end. Perhaps a laudable aim for those two bodies might be to identify what new powers would help Scotland to tackle its terrible levels of child poverty, which, we have to remember, are above the UK average, while the UK is bottom of 21 nations in the UNICEF table.
	We need to look, at course, at the devolved levers. I think that the Scottish Government are using those. These are the slow-burn issues: health, education, skills and housing. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee told us that the levers controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions were the most instrumental in tackling levels of child poverty.

Michael Weir: Before my hon. Friend moves on to the subject of the DWP, does he agree that the decision by the new Scottish Government to start a council house building programme will go a long way to tackling the housing problem that is at the root of such poverty, as there is a severe shortage of affordable housing, especially for rent, in Scotland?

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend is correct. When I taught on the Isle of Mull in the mid-1990s, housing was a particular problem. Children oscillated between various abodes during the year, spending six months in a winter let and then, when the summer season came, moving to a caravan for the summer. I hope that that situation will now come to an end. This subject hits all parties. We can easily throw insults around and say that this lot or that lot are to blame, but such things happen, and we have to do something about them.
	Poverty is a big issue. In this speech, I can only throw a few shafts of light on it, when it requires floodlights— [ Interruption. ] Cruelly, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, tells me that I am not even doing that. I strive to do it. Charities, PhDs and professors are working on the subject, but the Scottish Affairs Committee has played its part. It has made at least 20 recommendations, which have been welcomed by many bodies. Barnado's Scotland estimates that 250,000 children live in poverty and 100,000 live in fuel poverty in Scotland. I shall return to that point. The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, like many other groups, has provided an excellent brief for MPs that draws attention to some of the 20 recommendations in the Committee's report.
	Recommendation 6 says that
	"the tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no-one in full time work is living in poverty".
	A quarter of children living in poverty have an adult in the family who is in full-time work. The Committee suggested that the minimum wage and tax credits should be raised to address that problem.
	That reminds me of the evidence given to the Committee on 16 January 2007, 15 months ago, by Professor John Veit-Wilson of Newcastle university, who talked about the working poor. He said that, unfortunately, the UK leads Europe in the average percentage of people leaving low-quality jobs to go back into other low-quality jobs. The working poor remain the working poor. However, he also pointed out—this may help the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) with his question about independence—that Ireland is at the opposite end of the table. It is in the very fortunate position of having the highest proportion of people moving from low-quality jobs into high-quality jobs. It is important that we recognise the failures in our society and accept that there are better ways of dealing with the problem. Ireland clearly has some ability to improve things that Scotland does not have.
	The next recommendation in the report is that we should be careful about forcing people into work. Recommendation 10 highlights the fact that the parents pushed into work could be entering low-paid work. They could go from low-paid job to low-paid job to low-paid job. Although work is of course an important route out of poverty, we must ensure that people do not leave socially valuable work. The report points out that much of the work that many people do in the home is not recognised. The work of carers and those who look after children is not fully recognised, and we should be careful about forcing people into work of low economic value.
	Recommendation 12 calls for more resources. The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland welcomes the £1 billion extra from the Chancellor, but it points out that this is only a quarter of what is needed. If we consider that we are fighting £1 billion a year wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, perhaps we should take another look at our priorities.
	Recommendation 15 is important, and offers a step that the Government can manage relatively easily. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) picked up on this point, too. The equalisation of child benefit would remove the discrimination against larger families and would make sure that the state values all children the same. Child benefit should be £18.80 for all children, not £18.80 for the oldest child and £12.55 for subsequent children.
	As I said, I want to touch on fuel poverty and how it impacts on one in 10 children. The memorandum submitted by the Highland council to the Committee in October 2006 marked out the low wages in rural economies and, as the Member representing Na h-Eileanan an Iar, I particularly recognise the higher costs of rural living. The current Scottish Government are trying to help with transport costs on the islands in my constituency through the road equivalent tariff, and a pilot project extended this to Coll and Tiree. However, as Edinburgh gives with one hand, London takes away with the other: the price of diesel was £1.34 a litre only a couple of days ago, and it could be higher now. The proportion of tax paid on fuel is higher in my constituency than in probably any other in the land.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) touched on an important point when he said that the cost of central heating oil was rocketing for his constituents. The position is the same for my constituents, and the percentage of household income spent on fuel oil and other fuels, and the distances that people have to travel, must mean that far more people are being plunged into poverty. As has been said, it is sometimes not worth while for people to take a job if they have to travel 20 or 30 miles in what may well be a poor third-hand car, and face the costs associated with that travel.
	Perhaps we could throw party arguments to one side and aim to get child well-being higher on the agenda; our position in the UNICEF table should be a lot higher. Interestingly, in "The Health of Nations", the authors point out a fact that surprised me. The Swedish Government face the most unequal income distribution pre-tax, but the most equal post-tax. As one of the contributors to the Committee's report pointed out, before the first world war a commentator said that where a thinking rich man might see a problem of poverty, a thinking poor man might see a problem of wealth.

Tom Clarke: I trust that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) will forgive me if I do not follow up on exactly the points that he raised, particularly as I have been encouraged to make a shorter speech than most hon. Members have made so far in the debate.
	I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee, on presenting his report, and on his excellent speech. In order to avoid your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to try to keep within the guidelines of our debate, I will base my speech on paragraph 42 of the Committee's third report, which says:
	"Our research, conducted through the unique 1 in 4 poll, shows that social injustice impacts on families living with disability in many ways. They experience poverty of income, poverty of choice and poverty of opportunity."
	It then says, in bold:
	"The Scottish Executive should do more to ensure that resources reach disabled families, who are disproportionately affected by poverty."
	I welcome that recommendation, and that is why I want to concentrate exclusively on those views and on the issue of children and disability in Scotland.
	The focus on disability is real and necessary. In the Leonard Cheshire report, "Disability Poverty in the UK", it was confirmed that people who are disabled are twice as likely to live in poverty as those who are not disabled. The extra cost of having a disability can be a huge challenge. Some estimates indicate that disabled families have to pay about 24 to 35 per cent. in addition to their normal spending. Yesterday, when I spoke to representatives of Contact a Family in Edinburgh, they reminded me—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central made this point—that debt is a much bigger problem for such families, who are four times more likely than other families to owe in excess of £10,000. Only 16 per cent. of mothers of disabled kids are able to work.
	Behind all that is the realisation that in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the population of disabled people, and therefore disabled children, is growing, so even if we are to keep public services at current standards, it is vital to increase resources. That was one of the reasons why I was delighted to be invited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to chair a review that dealt exclusively with disabled children and their families, to which all parties contributed, as I have already acknowledged; we acted in an all-party spirit. My colleagues will understand what I mean when I say that what was important was not so much the views of Members of Parliament, but the evidence that people gave in our hearings in the House.
	If Parliament is to mean anything, no people in the United Kingdom, whether from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland, should ignore the views of the parents who came to see us—parents who might be dealing with disabled children 24 hours a day, seven days a week—or of the disabled children who came and spoke about the real issues that they have to face daily.
	I do not apologise for being passionate about the subject. I have been accused by a list MSP of scaremongering, but I genuinely do not want to make the issue a political football. I think that I am entitled to claim that I have tried to pursue disabled people's rights for a very long time in this House, and I will not change now. When we had evidence, as we did then, that was overwhelming, extremely moving and touching, about the need for much, much more support than we were giving, we were entitled to listen. When, in the event, we made our recommendations about short breaks, the crucial problem of transition when young people leave the educational system and go—sometimes we know not where—and the need for support to complement what the health service can provide, those issues became very real.
	I was therefore delighted when, several months later, the Government issued the document, "Aiming high for disabled children: better support for families" and not only responded to the priorities that we as an all-party group set, based on what we had heard, but announced that they were making an additional allocation of £340 million to deal with most of the suggestions that we made.
	I want to be clear. The Government did not accept everything that we wanted. Some of the recommendations —for example, on fuel poverty—have not yet been endorsed, but the vital issue is the £340 million and what happened in Scotland. Because of the Barnett formula, the contribution to Scotland amounted to £34 million. We expected that to be spent on the issues that we identified.

Michael Weir: rose—

Tom Clarke: I wanted to take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, but I am happy to give way.

Michael Weir: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have great respect for him and his work on disabled people. I have personal knowledge of some of that. I will not accuse him of scaremongering, but he and some of his colleagues give the impression that the money has somehow disappeared, when it has not. Against the backdrop of tight financial settlement, the Scottish Government increased council funding by 12.6 per cent. above the spending review figure to more than the £34 million. That money did go to local authorities. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that local authorities must have the opportunity of spending the money in the best way possible to help disabled families in their areas.

Tom Clarke: I am genuinely glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. I tell him in all candour, and I hope humility, that he is absolutely wrong, and I hope to persuade him.
	The £34 million was never allocated exclusively for local authorities, important though many of their services are. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the money is being spent by local authorities, but also by the NHS and other agencies. How could it be otherwise, in view of what we were told in the review? To say that the money has been given to the local authorities, with no accountability whatever, is entirely inconsistent with the recommendations that we made.  [Interruption.]
	I shall deal, if hon. Gentlemen allow me, with the response that has come from the First Minister. Following the debate in Westminster Hall—Scottish National party Members would have been welcome to come and participate, but they did not—I wrote to the First Minister. I wrote in the knowledge that Mr. Ingram, the Minister for Children and Early Years in the Scottish Executive, had written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown).

Mohammad Sarwar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extra money given to local authorities in Scotland was used to freeze the council tax, not for helping people with disabilities?

Tom Clarke: I have to say that, frankly, that is the conclusion that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has reached and expressed in the House.  [Interruption.] Instead of heckling when they have not done their homework, Scottish National party Members should realise how much damage the issue is doing to their colleagues in Holyrood and to the whole process of devolution.
	I want to be fair, as I hope I always am. I thought that something was going awry with the whole issue and knew that the money was not allocated exclusively for local government, but I accepted the argument on ring-fencing. The report that came out under my chairmanship said that if ring-fencing was not acceptable, we would welcome a mechanism for identifying where the money had gone. That is all that we asked for.
	On 5 February, following our debate in Westminster Hall, I wrote to the First Minister. I hope that the House will recognise the tone in which I tried to conduct the correspondence. I wrote:
	"Obviously I have given this matter a great deal of thought on the basis of my having said on a number of occasions that I have no wish to see such an important issue becoming a game of 'political football'.
	I am writing because I am moving towards the conclusion—encouraged by Mr. Ingram's letter"—
	that is, the letter written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway—
	"that there is a substantial misunderstanding relating to the Treasury's intentions as to the impact on disabled children and their families in Scotland."
	Six weeks later, I received a reply from the First Minister, thanking me for my letter. He went on to rehearse the arguments that we have heard this afternoon, and encapsulated them in this sentence:
	"Our Concordat with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities...includes a commitment to make progress towards delivering an extra 10,000 respite weeks per year. This is for all care groups, including disabled children."
	He then declined the opportunity to have a meeting.
	Scottish National party Members want poverty to be challenged, especially for children in Scotland. Do they really believe that I was such a threat to the First Minister that we could not have had a meeting? The right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) talks about money going to local authorities, but we do not know how it will be spent; it could be used for repairing roads. I would have asked him where the answer was to our recommendations about the health service, including about children who suffer from brain damage.

Pete Wishart: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the tenacious way in which he has gone about dealing with this issue. I do not want to accuse him of scaremongering and giving the wrong impression.
	We all accept that the money has not been lost, but passed on to local authorities. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not trust the local authorities to make the right decisions on such vital issues on behalf of their communities? We trust our councillors. Does he not trust his?

Tom Clarke: I do trust local authorities. As a former provost and former president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I have every reason to do so. I urge Scottish National party Members to read our report; they clearly have not. It acknowledges that local authorities offered excellent examples of best practice. However, in summary, that money was never meant to go exclusively to local authorities. Why are we not being told about the non-provision of extra funding to the health service? I had representations from Scottish organisations that deal with specific disability needs. There are children who need wheelchairs, provided by the NHS, that are adapted for their purposes. Why are they able to feel that more money is being devoted to such things in every part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland?

Michael Connarty: On the link between poverty and wheelchair use, the chairman of one of the wheelchair users campaign groups lives in my constituency, and he has a daughter with muscular dystrophy. He wrote to me recently to say that he is deeply concerned that resources are inadequate, because families who need specialist wheelchairs have to find extra money from their own limited budget. I can pass that letter on to my right hon. Friend; it shows that what he is saying is perfectly accurate. Money was intended for such users and it is not going to the health service.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely excellent point.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Tom Clarke: I shall give way for the last time, because other people want to speak.

Angus MacNeil: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any wheelchair users in England are encountering similar problems?

Tom Clarke: Yes, undoubtedly. Our report said that they happen throughout the United Kingdom, which is why we argued that there had to be additional funding and resources, and in the absence of ring-fencing, there should be accountability about where the money is going. That is happening in places other than Scotland. That is my argument.
	I urge hon. Members opposite to think again; I do not think that the First Minister would lose out if he had a meeting with me in which we discussed our report and what we hope to achieve. One of the reasons why we have to argue to ensure that the money is spent where it is meant to be spent—local government, the health service and other agencies—is that more funding is being made available. On 28 April, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), announced an additional 5.5 per cent. increase in funding for care trusts, which will be spent on disabled children—palliative care, community equipment, short breaks and wheelchair services for those children.
	People everywhere except Scotland realise that the report we produced was sufficient to persuade the Government to give extra funding and to ensure that it went to disabled children and their families—that remains a priority. We find it absolutely unacceptable if people fail to consider the arguments, not just the views of Members of Parliament, while knowing that money is not going where it was meant to go—only to local councils, with no accountability. I urge them not to do that. The challenge of poverty among children will remain, and on these Benches, we shall fight and fight again until we remove it.

Alistair Carmichael: It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who made a reasoned and knowledgeable contribution. It is fair to say that as long as the right hon. Gentleman remains in this House, people with disabilities will always have a champion.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, I make only one observation. Ultimately, the issue will be resolved when disabled people see the services with which they are provided in Scotland. However, there is a larger point at issue, which is a classic illustration of the need to revisit the funding formula for the Scottish Parliament and of the need to give the Scottish Parliament greater control over the raising of its own budget. The Government in Westminster control finances and have a deliberate and entirely laudable aim, with a ring-fenced policy, but there is no guarantee of how money will be spent when it goes to Scotland. That is why we need to examine the wider issue, and the right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by giving a good example of the work that needs to be done by the Calman commission.
	I am delighted once again to be a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I was a member in the first Parliament in which I served and I have just rejoined. I was not a member when the Committee took evidence for the report but I joined it just before the report's publication and I could hardly have improved on its terms. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), who is an excellent Committee Chairman, on focusing the Committee's work in this Parliament on poverty in Scotland. It is an exemplar of how such a Committee can be made to work post-devolution and I commend him for his efforts.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) cited a couple of statistics on child poverty in Scotland that especially struck me: 250,000 children live in poverty and 100,000 children are in fuel poverty. I do not make a partisan point. Anyone who is a citizen of one of the world's richest nations should find that a source of profound shame and embarrassment. That is why the work of the Committee, the Government in Westminster, the Government in Edinburgh, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and private business is crucial in tackling that scourge.
	I congratulate the Government on their progress since 1997. They have put a focus that previously did not exist on reducing child poverty, and there has been some benefit. Like many who gave evidence to the Committee, I am concerned that progress has stalled. If we approach the subject on a less partisan basis, acknowledging that stalling becomes less difficult.
	The danger is that we are left with the very poorest—what might, if one were pessimistic, be perceived as an irreducible core. That is why partnership working, focusing on so many different levels, is supremely important. Let me pick up on a few matters for which special effort is needed.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who is not in his place, identified education. He is right that education knows no equal as a driver for social mobility. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, work and training constitute other opportunities for getting out of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, transport is also important. Transport opens up, especially for young people and those in rural communities, a range of opportunities for education, social inclusion and developing talents, which would otherwise be denied them.
	I hope that, by the time the Minister responds, he will have had an opportunity to get a reply to the question that I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). What assessment has the Department for Work and Pensions made of the impact of the remarkable recent increases in the price of basic foodstuffs and fuel? Many people in rural communities rely on a private car for transport and need fuel for that as well as for heating their homes.
	I draw hon. Members' attention to conclusion 24 of the report. It states:
	"We believe that rural poverty presents its own challenges, which will not be solved by an approach tailored to the small pockets of deprivation characteristic of urban poverty. It is vital that the Government's anti-poverty policies are subject to 'rural-proofing'. Witnesses have suggested that the establishment of a Commission for Rural Scotland might be a way to give rural communities a stronger, unified voice and we hope that the Government and the Scottish Executive will consider this proposal. Greater investment in outreach is needed to ensure that geographically dispersed communities have equal access to services".
	That is a cause close to my heart and that of my constituents. In many ways, poverty in urban areas is much easier to identify. One can sometimes identify urban areas that have a problem with low income and social deprivation just by walking around the streets. Rural areas often do not have the same critical mass of population and poverty is not so obvious. One might see a bonnie wee cottage with a well-kept front garden, but behind the front door one is still as likely to find two or even three generations living in a house that was built for one family. That is a graphic illustration of the lack of affordable social housing that blights Scotland.
	Let me say a few words about tax credits. There is a rural perspective to tax credits, too. The Government place a great deal of reliance on tax credits, but I am sure that every hon. Member has encountered the same problem as I have: the hardship suffered by those who can least afford it that is caused by tax credits being overpaid and the overpayments being reclaimed. Tax credits seem to work best for people who work for a defined 36 or 40 hour week, with little overtime or fluctuations in their family circumstances. As soon as the family unit breaks up because of a separation or somebody gets a lot of overtime and their income increases, problems arise. However, a lot of people in areas such as the one that I represent are self-employed. Their incomes fluctuate throughout the year; indeed, their incomes for the previous financial year are often not known until the next financial year. Tax credits can hardly cope with that, which causes financial hardship for those least able to deal with it.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Carmichael: I am under some time pressure, so I will not take the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
	There is another phenomenon experienced in my constituency, whereby a number of people have two or three part-time jobs to make up one equivalent full-time job or are in seasonal employment, making a lot of money in the summer months but not so much in the rest of the year. They need the help given by the tax credits system, but it does not seem to be able to cope with their situation. The Minister pulls a face—perhaps he does not agree—but that is my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament. We have a higher number of people in self-employment and one of the lowest wage economies in Scotland, but we also have a low level of unemployment. I fully accept that those cases are not easy to deal with. However, because of the highly bureaucratic nature of the tax credits system and the inefficient way in which it has been administered, those people are being hurt most.

Angus MacNeil: If I could jump to the Minister's aid, I know that her son is a share fisherman in Barra. As you will be aware, share fishermen face particular difficulties with tax credits, because of the seasonal nature of their work and changing catches. Fishermen frequently come to me with the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Alistair Carmichael: I am sure that you are indeed acquainted, as I am, with the problems that share fisherman face, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Government ought to be focusing on two opportunities: the equalisation of child benefit, which has been referred to, and the introduction of seasonal grants, which, Save the Children UK predicts, would lift an extra 440,000 children out of poverty and would go a long way to ensuring that that irreducible core, as some might see it, can be tackled.

Anne Begg: Given the time constraints, I shall simply refer to some of the points that I was going to make, which have been covered by many speakers already. I was going to discuss in detail the Government's successes in alleviating child poverty. The increase in child benefit has been mentioned, as have the introduction of tax credits and the fact that they have gone up ahead of inflation. We have also heard that we have got more lone parents—indeed, more parents—into work. Those measures are all important for the reduction of child poverty. For most people, work will be the main route out of poverty. If we do not get people of working age into work, the poverty that they and their children experience will continue for generations.
	I have been slightly disappointed by some of the comments made by SNP Members. A simplistic view has been taken of the consequences of child poverty and the measures that are needed to alleviate it. Child poverty is not just about benefits, although they are important. The issue is much more complex than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) amply illustrated the interrelationships and complexities that can often gather in a family's life to make the poverty that they experience long and enduring.
	No single policy, whether from Westminster, Holyrood or local government, will alleviate child poverty. It will be a combination of such policies, working together, that will lift people out of poverty. So far, the Government have been very effective in lifting children out of poverty, although we know that those efforts will have to go further. As has been mentioned already, Scotland has done better than the UK, proportionately, in lifting people out of poverty. The figure for the UK is 600,000, whereas for Scotland it is 90,000, which is far better, proportionately, in relation to Scotland's population.
	If the Government's success is illustrated by any one thing, it is the fact that all political parties now say that they want to end not only child poverty but poverty. Things were not always that way. Poverty was not on the political agenda until the Labour Government put it there. Perhaps it is a mark of their success in engaging with the general population that poverty is now seen as something that needs to be tackled and as a measure of the Government's success. It is easy to say that we should end poverty and child poverty, but saying it does not wish it away. Warm words are easy to say, and we have heard warm words this afternoon, but whether a political party is able to back up its words will be illustrated by its actions—by their actions shall we know them.
	What action have we seen from the SNP in the year since it took power in Holyrood and in Aberdeen city council, both of which have been mentioned this afternoon? Holyrood and local government both have a role to play in reducing poverty. We know, from all the reports that have been done, that early intervention is incredibly important to the alleviation of child poverty. We need to reach children at a young enough age and work with their families. In England, in particular—but, not quite so obviously in Scotland, unfortunately—we have seen from Sure Start that early intervention clearly works. That involves making sure that children have nursery places, which is why I am so disappointed that the nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds in Aberdeen have been scrapped under the SNP and Liberals.
	It is not just a matter of nursery places, but of good local schooling, so I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can imagine my disappointment when only yesterday the SNP and Liberals on Aberdeen city council voted to close Victoria Road primary school which is in the most deprived part of my constituency. That school is a well loved part of the community, and parents and children have mounted a campaign to save it, but it has fallen on the deaf ears of the Scottish National and Liberal councillors who have hard-heartedly said that the school has to close by August. We are trying to tackle child poverty, but that will not help the children in my constituency.

Michael Weir: The hon. Lady mentions closures, so will she condemn the Unionist coalition on Angus council, of which her party is a member, for its proposals to close schools such as Eassie primary school?

Anne Begg: If I remember correctly, when the SNP was in control in Angus, it was also closing rural schools— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really do not want a battle of this kind going on if we can help it. We do not want to talk more about education than child poverty either, although I understand that the two are related.

Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Much of this afternoon's discussion has been based on the report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but I am sure its Chairman will not mind my mentioning that a month later a report was published by the Work and Pensions Committee on which I sit. It was called, "The best start in life? Alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility and eradicating child poverty" and it looked at the issues across the whole of the UK. What came out clearly in our report was the close correlation between poverty and disability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) has already mentioned that, and there is indeed such a correlation. People living in households in which there is a disabled adult or disabled child are more likely to be living in poverty than people living in households without disability, so what is done to provide services for adult disabled people will have a direct relationship with the poverty levels experienced by the children of that family.
	Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how upset I was to discover that £27 million was being cut from the SNP-Lib Dem Aberdeen city council's budget of 14 February in what is now known in the city as the Valentine's day massacre. That might have something to do with the disappearance of the money that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill talked about. Included in those £27 million of cuts were services to disabled adults, so they will have an impact on the children in those families and may well make child poverty in Aberdeen worse.

Alistair Carmichael: I am not particularly familiar with the situation in Aberdeen, but will the hon. Lady tell me what proposals were in the Labour alternative budget for Aberdeen this year?

Anne Begg: It has turned out to be terribly difficult for us to find out exactly where all the figures came from. Only four weeks after the budget was passed were we able to work out the figures on the various lines in it. Given that the Liberal Democrats—and, indeed, the SNP—did not propose an alternative Budget to the one presently going through the House, it would have been foolhardy indeed if the Labour group on Aberdeen city council had proposed an alternative budget when we could not even find out what the figures were. The figures are so bad that the Accounts Commission is about to hold a public inquiry in Aberdeen in two weeks' time to find out what has gone so seriously wrong with the council's finances.  [Interruption.] If the Accounts Commission cannot work out exactly what has gone on, it shows that— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have all these sedentary remarks being made across the Chamber, as it really hampers the debate.

Anne Begg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that I am getting off the subject as well, so I shall move back to the issue of child poverty.
	I was never among those politicians who have said this afternoon that they advocated the removal of ring-fencing. I always thought that ring-fencing was a perfectly legitimate thing for central Government to do when disbursing funds for particular projects or policy areas. I am very disappointed that the SNP Administration in Holyrood have removed ring-fencing, because, as we have seen in Aberdeen, services for the vulnerable and disabled are the first to get cut when there is any kind of budgetary pressure, as there obviously has been.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady mentions the vulnerable and disabled, but is she confident that all those who were affected by the doubling of the 10p tax rate will be compensated fully?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is barely related to the topic in question.

Anne Begg: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and those with children will have been compensated by the child tax credit. If only such people were in work and anywhere near paying the tax rate, they would have an income far in excess of their current one.
	I want to touch briefly on another aspect of money from Westminster going into a black hole, and ask the Minister to look into the matter. In Aberdeen, individualised budgets and something called "in control" have been proposed for disabled people. Aberdeen is the only local authority in Scotland going down that route, but the programme has begun to be rolled out across local authorities in England, where half a billion pounds has been made available to local authorities for implementation. The Barnett consequential of half a billion pounds is £55 million; I can only assume that that £55 million has gone into the Scottish block grant—we know that lots of money has, because the Scottish block grant has more than doubled in size from 1999 to 2008.
	That £55 million is not being used for the purposes for which it was allocated in England and Wales. Before SNP Members start jumping up and down, I accept that it is up to the Scottish Executive to decide how to disburse the block grant, but that money is specifically geared to helping disabled people to manage their own budgets and perhaps assist with their social care. As Aberdeen is the only Scottish council that has gone down that route, it is interesting that it has not had access to any of that money; if it had, it might help to fill some of its £25 million gap in funding. Perhaps the Minister can look into that new issue.
	Although the Labour Government, working in consort with the Labour Executive in Holyrood, made worthwhile strides in reducing child poverty, what has happened in the past year? On the evidence of my local authority and what the SNP has done in Holyrood, if only the warm words were followed by actions, we would not be where we are. Actions to alleviate child poverty have been lacking, and many of the actions and policies pursued by the SNP have been to the detriment of those living in poverty. My fear is that instead of the child poverty figures continuing to come down, they might go into reverse and go up. I hope not, because we are talking about vulnerable individuals who deserve our help.

Pete Wishart: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), who turns to consistent and familiar themes. SNP Members are going to start dedicating a song to her, "The Fairy Tale of Aberdeen". It is a pleasure to take part in the debate.

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I have only been on my feet for a minute, but yes, of course.

David Cairns: Given that the hon. Gentleman has made about a million interventions, I am surprised that he does not want to take one. He accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) of telling a fairy tale. In that case, why does he think that the local Aberdeen newspaper, which is no friend to my party, plastered all over its front page on the day that his party put through its budget, "Will the last person to leave Aberdeen please put out the lights"? Is the local newspaper perpetuating a fairy tale too?

Pete Wishart: I cannot say that I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, which is the usual pile of rubbish that we have consistently heard on this issue. We have been here again and again. The fairytale of Aberdeen has several choruses and verses, and he has just added a further verse.
	It is good to take part in this debate, and particularly good to be able to discuss the report by the Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). When I hear all the references to his fine chairmanship of that Committee, I sometimes wish that I could experience it, but I guess that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) is in that position for us just now.
	It would be churlish of me not to say that yes, of course, the situation concerning child poverty has improved since the election of a Labour Government in 1997. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and it would be foolish to try to pretend otherwise. However, we should look at what they inherited—the scorched earth policies of the Conservatives. Even Attila the Hun wearing a red rosette would have had to have improved on the situation that new Labour inherited when it took over from the Tories and their disastrous policies on employment and poverty. We are still in a situation that leaves 18 per cent. of our population in relative poverty and 130,000 Scottish children in absolute poverty. Worse than that, Save the Children reckons that some 90,000 Scottish children are still in what is regarded as severe poverty. After 11 years of a Labour Government, that is not good enough. We have to do much more to tackle this, the most pernicious of our social problems.
	I remember those days in 1997. I remember all those warm words—the almost missionary zeal with which the Labour party was going to tackle child poverty. We heard fantastic statements from the former First Minister—the late, great Donald Dewar—about what he was going to do. Child poverty was to be halved by 2010 and major targets were to be taken forward to deal with it.

Ben Wallace: rose—

Pete Wishart: I am conscious that other Members want to speak, but I will take an intervention if is it brief.

Ben Wallace: What is the SNP's target on reducing poverty now that it is in charge of the Scottish Government?

Pete Wishart: Unfortunately, all that the SNP Government can do is deal with the symptoms of child poverty—the cure lies in the powers and mechanisms that unfortunately rest with this place. If the hon. Gentleman wants to join me in a campaign to have those powers repatriated, I would welcome him as a new recruit.
	I remember all the warm words about how new Labour was going to approach this. If I had not known that shower better, I would almost have been carried away by it myself. I was prepared to be dazzled, knocked out and totally impressed by what they were going to do. It has not quite worked out like that, and now we can see that there has been disappointment about what this Government have achieved. The promise to eradicate child poverty within 20 years will not be met, and the goal to halve it by 2012 has more or less been shelved.
	Another key commitment from those early days was to reduce the number of children in poverty by at least a quarter by 2004. That target has not been met. I have seen the figures. There was a reduction in child poverty between 1998 and 1999, and again between 2004 and 2005. However, figures released by the Department for Work and Pensions suggest that there was an increase in child poverty in 2004-05 and 2005-06. This year, there will be progress in dealing with child poverty because in their Budget the Government committed to putting £1 billion of extra spending into areas such as child benefit and tax credit. I welcome that. However, that figure is completely inadequate to meet the targets and goals. It is reckoned that £3 billion-worth of investment—

Mohammad Sarwar: rose—

Pete Wishart: Of course I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Mohammad Sarwar: I can see that the hon. Gentleman cares about child poverty. The reduction in prescription charges from £6 to 80p, which will benefit almost every Scottish Member of Parliament and councillor, will cost almost £100 million. Could a fraction of that have been used for disabled people, making a big difference to their quality of life?

Pete Wishart: I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I hope that he is not suggesting that there is no place for universal benefits. The scheme has been welcomed by practically everyone in Scotland, and he should do the same.
	It will cost £3 billion to get the Government back on course to halve child poverty by 2010, but that figure needs to be put into perspective. It is one third of the £9 billion that the Government will spend on the infrastructure for the Olympic games in London. This week,  The Sunday Times published its "Rich List", and it shows that the wealthiest 1,000 people have seen their income quadruple under new Labour. Even under the brief premiership of the current Prime Minister, their fortunes have soared by a massive 15 per cent.—just when the financial squeeze kicks in for the rest of the community, with faltering house prices and people in poverty being hit especially badly.
	The abandonment of the 10p tax rate represents an appalling attack on the poor. Labour Members should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The Government have proposed various spurious concessions, but I have no clue as to how they will get around the problem. I have seen a ridiculous suggestion that the winter fuel allowance could be used to compensate for the loss of the 10p starting rate of tax. It is totally ridiculous, and there will be a massive impact on the poorest in our community.
	The cost of child poverty to Scotland is absolutely massive. The Scottish Government have estimated it at between £.5 billion and £1.75 billion, but we know that, in terms of its impact on our society, the cost is almost incalculable. It will lead to poor levels of health and educational attainment, and the lost potential of every Scottish child who is in poverty. The Scottish Government produced a well-researched paper on child poverty in Scotland. It concluded:
	"The savings from ending child poverty are potentially of a similar order of magnitude as the expenditure required to do so."
	That is the true economics of poverty. It shows that, if we were prepared to apply the resources, we could really start to deal with it.
	What are Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament doing while the Scottish Government get on with tackling and challenging child poverty? They had an opportunity to debate the problem in the Communities Committee, but they preferred to talk about golf courses. That shows what their priority for Scotland is. It is an absolute disgrace, and they should be ashamed.
	It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) is no longer present, as we could have recruited him to the campaign. We can deal only with the symptoms: it is up to the Government in Westminster to resolve the problem. They have the powers but, if they are not going to use them, they should get out of the way and give them to the Scottish Parliament so that we can get on with dealing with what is a very real problem.

Anne McGuire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in my speech, I said that child poverty is not a matter for the Westminster Government alone? I said that we had to work in partnership with the devolved Administrations, charities, voluntary organisations and business across Scotland. That is how we will alleviate poverty, and the tone of the hon. Gentleman's last few words are at odds with that approach.

Pete Wishart: Of course I accept that we have to work in partnership, but the main powers and responsibilities for tackling child poverty reside with the Government. I maintain that they are not fulfilling their obligations in that regard, and that they should be doing much more.
	I want to deal briefly with a couple of recommendations in the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee. Recommendation 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred, states:
	"The tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no one in full time work is living in poverty."
	Currently 25 per cent. of children are living in poverty with an adult who is working full time. That suggests to me that there is something not quite right about working family tax credits and child benefits. It is surely a basic assumption that if a child lives with a working parent there is no excuse for that child to be in poverty.
	Recommendation 10, to which other Members have referred, states:
	"Ministers must be cautious in suggesting that all parents are now expected to enter paid work."
	We must be careful about how we proceed. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament who sees a large number of anxious people making their way to his surgery to express their feelings about being forced back into work and the impact that that will have on their child care arrangements. I am very concerned about the Government's policy. We must ensure that support is available for lone parents returning to work. Returning people to work should involve more carrots than sticks, and certainly there should be no use of sticks when children are involved.
	Above all, we need resources. We now know the cost of failing to fulfil our obligations and to meet the targets and goals set by the Government: it is £3 billion a year. That is what the Government need to invest in order to deal with this problem, and if they were serious about it, that is what they would invest.

Ian Davidson: I believe that the Government have a good record on tackling child poverty, and poverty in general. It is particularly noticeable in constituencies how much has been achieved. It can be seen on the ground, and in the lives of real people that have been improved. The Government are to be congratulated not only on the amount that they have done, but on changing the political climate by moving this issue up the political agenda. As some of my colleagues have observed, it is discussed much more now than in earlier years, and in that context the Select Committee's report is very welcome.
	However, the Government's record is not perfect. As I have pointed out in election leaflets in the past, much has been done, and there is still much to do. We need to identify the areas in which we think that more needs to be done. One of them is the national minimum wage. It is a tremendous achievement, but the rate at which it has been set is clearly inadequate. We should press for a substantial increase if we believe that one of the best routes out of poverty is employment. I accept that some companies will find it difficult to pay the increase, but we should not be trying to build an economy on the basis of low wages. The Government should also think more about the level of their commitment to temporary and agency workers. The way in which they have run away from that issue does not fill us with enthusiasm for their record.
	Another context in which we should consider how the Government deal with those in employment is tax credit. Much of what I intended to say has already been said today, but I do not think I can avoid repeating the point that people do not comprehend how the tax credit system works. They think of it as an act of God, and that is profoundly disempowering for its recipients. It is undoubtedly far too complex. The experience of falling into debt, and of the debt recovery process, inhibits many people from claiming.
	Perhaps the Government will take up the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) that there should be an amnesty. I am sorry if I am interrupting the Minister's private conversations, because I hope that he will respond to that suggestion. Owing to their anxiety about the possibility of falling into debt, many people who would benefit from tax credits do not claim them. The low rate of benefit claims in my constituency is one of the issues that ought to concern us all.
	The third area where the Government have a good record is the efforts that they are making to get people into work. The number of people who are unemployed has fallen substantially in my constituency, but there must be a recognition of the fact that we are now getting to those who are the most difficult to place: those who have literacy difficulties—I had to spell that twice before I got it right—those who have numeracy difficulties, and also those who have drink and drugs issues, mental health problems or physical problems. All those people are much more expensive to get into employment than the "normal" unemployed.
	In those circumstances, there is a real danger that the Government's drive to move those on invalidity benefits into work will often be easier and cheaper than tackling that hard core of unemployment. I hope that the people whom I mentioned are not neglected, but there is an indication that the targets of some employment agencies operating in my area, which are funded partly through the Scottish Executive, are zeroing in on the invalidity benefit people rather than on the hard core of unemployed. We want to ensure that they are not left behind.
	It is in that context that I have strong opposition to any policy of unlimited immigration, because I see the way in which immigration has affected unemployment in my constituency. When an employer is faced with a choice between a 50-year-old Scot who has perhaps been unemployed for 10 years and has drink problems and a number of other issues to address, and a 25-year-old Pole who is highly skilled, highly motivated and enthusiastic, it is a no-brainer to work out who will be chosen. We must recognise that those at the very bottom of the pile are being adversely affected by the scale of immigration into this country. Although the limits that the Government are seeking to put on third-world immigration are perhaps welcome, we need to keep monitoring the situation to ensure that the effects are genuine.
	I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) intervened on the Opposition spokesman on the question of Wisconsin, community programmes and the like. In approaching the question of how to deal with those who are most difficult to get into employment, we must examine the idea of reinstating things like the community programme, and the idea of sanctions.
	There is no doubt that a substantial group of people in my constituency and elsewhere have no intention of going into employment if they can possibly avoid it, and that in some, but not all, circumstances only the use of sanctions will be effective. I recall that there was almost unanimity when we said that there should be no fifth option for youngsters—the fifth option being simply taking benefits, sitting on unemployment and not being prepared to take one of the positive outcomes on offer. If positive outcomes are on offer, we ought to be prepared, taking account of people's circumstances, to apply sanctions, because the generosity of the benefits system depends on the consent of those who are contributing. Many people in my constituency are turned against the generosity of the benefits system if they believe that it is being abused by people who, in many cases, they believe to be better off on benefits than they themselves are as a result of making a positive effort to look after themselves and their families. The Government have perhaps not faced up to these serious issues as we should.
	In dealing with those who are not in work, we must examine how we can revise and review the benefits system. As with tax credits, the vast majority of my constituents do not understand how the system works—they find themselves struggling to comprehend how best to claim their entitlements—which means that they cannot make meaningful decisions about what their choices are. We must accept that rough justice might result from simplification, but that would be better than the current mess.
	Any revision of the benefits system ought to take account of the disincentives to work that the enormously high marginal rate of penalty places on people. Depending on their exact circumstances, people who move into employment might gain tax credit, but they would possibly lose all or part of their council tax benefit, their rent rebates, free school meals, free footwear and clothing grants, free dental care and free prescriptions. That is why the vast majority of my constituents who are on that margin do not believe the argument that work always pays. Many of them are prepared to take work, even it costs them money, because they see it as a stepping stone. None the less, for those who are on the margins, there is undoubtedly an enormous disincentive.
	Poverty is not just about individuals; it is about areas. The old Strathclyde region used to have areas for priority treatment. The jargon has changed over the years, but the recognition that there are whole areas affected by the blight of poverty and unemployment, into which resources should be poured, remains a good one. The average man in my constituency does not reach pension age, but in Eastwood, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the average age at death is some 10 years higher. That is clearly unfair and unreasonable, and should be tackled—and not only on an individual basis. Such collective poverty and misery leads to poverty of ambition and aspiration, as well as poverty of service, because service providers know that they can get away with offering a lower level of service than they do to those who are more prosperous, more educated and more articulate, and can work the system better. Those who need the services least often end up getting the most.
	Initiatives such as Greater Pollok Working, under which the jobs created in the Silverburn development went overwhelmingly to local people, are to be welcomed. I hope that the jobs that will be created as a result of the Southern general hospital development will also go mostly to local people. As the Conservatives have pointed out, we need to try to empower local communities more. That is why I regret that the Scottish Government, in both its previous and current incarnations, have created community planning structures that are essentially mechanisms by which the centre can set all the rules and leave little discretion for local people to administer them.
	Like many others, I could have spoken for several hours on this subject, because it is one of the main drivers of my involvement in politics, and it motivates many people in our constituencies to speak out. I welcome the report by the Committee, and this debate, and I hope that the Government will return to this issue, not just on a wet Thursday when elections are being held in England, but on a day when we can have a more vigorous exchange about how best to take more of our fellow countrymen out of poverty.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. I thank the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), for suggesting this topic for consideration by the Committee. The work that we have done has been very helpful for members, and has led to a report that makes some important recommendations and has been well received by the organisations that campaign on poverty issues in Scotland.
	Last Friday I was invited by Save the Children Scotland to one of the local primary schools to discuss the issue of child poverty in Scotland with the schoolchildren. That was part of Save the Children's campaign to end child poverty in Scotland. It was one of the most challenging meetings that I have had to attend as a constituency MP, because the children, having had the opportunity to look at the issue through their young eyes, were outraged that adults seem to accept it as reasonable that some children in our society do not have access to basic human rights or resources. They were outraged that some children do not have the opportunity to go to the cinema or on holiday, never mind access to decent food and fuel.
	The school asked to me to read a short statement to the House, and I hope that you will allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It states:
	"Gateside Primary School in North Ayrshire think that it is fantastic that the Government is aiming to half child poverty in the UK by 2010 but want to know why you can't do more now? If the Government could provide extra funding surely child poverty in the UK could be tackled sooner rather than later. Gateside pupils don't want children in poverty to lose hope and think life is not worth living. Children in poverty need your help now!"
	After questions, I told the children that I hoped that they would be as radical in what they said as they grew older. As we get older, we sometimes see things less clearly.
	Of course, we live in one of the richest countries in the world. There are disputes about how riches can be counted, but it is said that we live in the fourth richest economy in the world. However, the wealth in our country is unfairly distributed. The Government should be congratulated on the ambitious targets that they have set themselves, both on child poverty and on the eradication of all poverty in this country. It is important that we are having this debate today.
	I welcome the fact that an extra £1 billion was put forward by the Government in the recent Budget. Not a huge amount of additional funds were available in the Budget, but the political commitment that was given by putting an extra £1 billion into strategies to ensure that we meet our child poverty targets by 2010 is to be greatly welcomed. However, we need to take on board the comments made by the organisations that are campaigning on the issue, such as the Child Poverty Action Group. That group strongly welcomes what the Government are doing, but says that it believes that an extra £3 billion will be required to ensure that we meet the targets by 2010.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that he thought that we were shelving our targets for 2010 and that the 2020 target would never be met. The reason why the Committee wanted to look at the issue of poverty—all the evidence we received from organisations and academics showed that Scotland is meeting our targets now—was that we wanted to ensure that, politically, we continue to do everything we can to meet those targets.
	I want briefly to focus on some of the Committee's recommendations, and in particular I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), who highlighted the wish of the Committee—expressed in a clear political statement—that no one in full-time work should live in poverty. Although we welcome the huge amounts of money that have been put into the system through tax credits and the number of children and families that have been lifted out of poverty through that mechanism, it is clear that the introduction of the national minimum wage, and the fact that more than 2.5 million people are in employment who were not in employment in 1997, have been at least as significant in achieving what we have so far achieved.
	We need to look again at the national minimum wage. I do not believe that it is the role of the state or of Government to subsidise bad employers. We need to question why so much tax credit money goes to people who work in full-time jobs. Is it reasonable that multinationals, supermarkets such as Asda and other organisations should pay wages that are either at minimum wage levels or just above? I hope that we will reconsider the level of the national minimum wage and significantly increase it.
	Another matter related to the national minimum wage which the Committee discussed was the youth rates. Part of the evidence from all the organisations from which we took evidence showed that there were problems with young people and poverty. Young people have not benefited as much as other groups from the Government's policies. Young people are better off than they were in 1997, but because they are not eligible for tax credits and because the minimum wage rates for them are lower, they have not benefited as much. I therefore welcome the commitment that the Government have made in the past fortnight to reconsider the youth rates for the national minimum wage.
	The evidence that the Committee heard was that if young people live in poverty, there is an impact when they become parents, and on their children. We cannot compartmentalise the issue of child poverty. It is a symptom of the fact that we have such a big gap between rich and poor, and that we have accepted high levels of poverty in such a wealthy country.
	The Government inherited an horrific situation in 1997. We had the highest levels of child poverty in Europe, despite the fact that we were one of the richest countries in Europe. A huge amount has been done, but we need to go further. We need to take on the comments that have been made about the tax credits system, which has done so much. The system is highly bureaucratic and it does not cope very well with people's changing circumstances. The problem of overpayment is increasingly a disincentive to apply for tax credits. I hope that, as we go forward, we take those points on board.
	We also need to consider the recommendation in the Committee's report that says:
	"Ministers must be cautious in suggesting that all parents are now expected to enter paid work."
	There has been a change of policy recently, whereby people with children aged 12 and over are now expected to work. That may not be appropriate in all circumstances. We must say clearly that there is a strong role for parents to look after their children at home.
	We must also consider an issue that all the campaigning organisations have raised with us: we should equalise the rate of child benefit. There have been significant increases in recent years, and we must continue that trend of big increases. However, we also must ensure that large families benefit as much as they can. The evidence that the Committee heard was that families with many children are often the families in the most extreme poverty, and the Government should look into that.
	I also ask the Minister to consider something that has been raised with me by Citizens Advice Scotland over the last couple of days. Regulations will be introduced in July to cut the backdating of benefit, particularly housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit. If there is any attempt to reduce the backdating of those benefits in October, that could affect some of the poorest families with children who rely on them. I ask the Minister to reconsider.
	We need to look at all our policies from the perspective of the impact that they have on child poverty and on meeting our poverty targets. As a Labour MP, I expect the Government to poverty-proof all our policies—whether those policies are on taxation or on other things. We have done a huge amount, and I believe that the political will is there to make sure that we meet the 2010 target. With all-party support from colleagues throughout the House, we will make a real difference to children's lives.
	If we allow children to live in poverty now, we will be living with the social consequences of that in the future. Those consequences include antisocial behaviour, crime and drug abuse—subjects that we have not dwelt on in the debate. The children at Gateside school were concerned about the impact on children of parents abusing drugs. If we do not deal with all those issues, we will live with the problems in the future.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central for instigating the report that has led to this debate. I very much hope that we will be able to come back here in two years' time to say that we have met our targets.

Ben Wallace: Today's debate has been a welcome opportunity to debate child poverty in Scotland, and the UK Government's policy on child poverty in general. Undoubtedly, in many regards, the Government's efforts have helped to reduce poverty levels for thousands in Scotland. The questions that we must all continue to ask are whether the Government's policies are a short-term or long-term solution, and whether the large sums of money being spent are having the desired effect of stemming people's need for Government assistance and reducing the risk of people entering poverty.
	As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, we fully support some of the measures. It is clear that the minimum wage has made a real difference and acts as a strong incentive for people to go out and work—making work pay, so to speak. As we are the originators of the tax credit concept, hon. Members would expect Conservative Members to recognise the role that tax credits play in eradicating poverty and in ensuring that a person who makes the effort to work is rewarded by state support.
	However, we worry that the Government have perhaps put too much faith in the tax credit system, instead of spending in other areas to address the underlying causes of poverty. Some have said that in its current state, the tax credit system now at best serves merely as a guaranteed comfort blanket for target groups, increasing benefit dependency and diverting funds away from tackling underlying poverty. In the words of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), tax credits
	"cushion the blow of poverty rather than help...people to escape it."
	People are perhaps becoming more entrenched in the system, rather than breaking away from it.
	Department for Work and Pensions figures from June last year show that although in the UK 1 million children have moved from just below the poverty line to just above it, there are 1 million more children than a decade ago who need support to get above that line. The benefit system is having to run harder and harder just to stand still, and tax credits are perhaps masking the symptoms of poverty, not curing it.
	Let me turn to the very poorest in society—those people in our society who earn 40 per cent. less than the median. In our inquiry, the Scottish Affairs Committee heard that Save the Children felt that
	"while UK and Scottish Government policies have succeeded in lifting many children out of poverty, current policies are having no effect on the very poorest children and their families".
	The facts speak for themselves: according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the number of people living in severe poverty has risen in the UK by 600,000 since 1997.
	More than two contributors to the Committee highlighted the different experiences of other groups in the benefit system. Compelling evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that although the tax system helped lone parents with children, lifting nearly all of them out of poverty in Scotland, which is of course welcome, it helped to entrench working couples with children in poverty. I was glad to see that the report recommended that the Government look into trying to make sure that couples with children get at least equal treatment. That point was echoed in the evidence from Barnardo's.
	Today's debate is entitled "Child Poverty in Scotland", although given the contributions of some Scottish National party Members, one could easily have been confused about that, as we wandered on to fairy tales. However, we must not forget the other people who live in poverty. It is worse than a shame—it is almost a disgrace—that the number of working adults in poverty who do not have children has risen to its highest level since 1961. Some 4 million such people are now in poverty; that is 800,000 more than in 1998. If tomorrow's parents are in poverty, what chance will their children have?
	I believe that we are approaching the time when the tax benefit system in its current form will have run its course. Yes, it has been a success in pump-priming the situation since 1997—there have been some positive results—but if we are to progress, we must address the underlying roots of poverty. I was delighted to see that the Committee focused on and recommended stronger measures on child care. One of the biggest challenges for all of us in Scotland, and not just the low-paid, is finding proper child care so that we can take advantage of economic prosperity, and so that those on low incomes can work themselves out of poverty.
	However, it is worrying that some of the contributory factors in Scotland are going in the wrong direction. Many of them are in devolved areas. If education is the solution to poverty, it is worth stating that in 15 per cent. of the most deprived areas in Scotland, pupils' standard grades are two grades behind the average. When my great-grandfather left being a farm labourer in Fife, it was because his education allowed him to make the leap from farm labourer to railway porter. That is the real future for all of us in this country. We must invest in education as the No. 1 priority to help solve poverty for the long term.
	Unfortunately, drug abuse in Scotland is up, drug crime is up and methadone prescription is up. We should not debate child poverty in Scotland without talking about the role of the family. I recognise that families cannot be forced together, but the facts are clear. Where children are brought up in stable homes, they have less chance of growing up in poverty and have better chances in life. The Government can at least try to encourage families and should do nothing to penalise them.
	During the debate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) spoke of her fears about the changes to the NHS in Scotland under the SNP Administration. She said that her party would have to go back to being the party of the NHS. Having served as a shadow Health Minister in the Scottish Parliament, I point out that that comes from a member of the party that has increased the role of the private sector in the NHS more than any other party in its history. We will be interested to see whether the hon. Lady supports a reversal of that policy.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) chairs our Scottish Affairs Committee. I congratulate him on being an excellent, patient and inclusive Chairman. The report does justice to him, and I hope he will be around for the next few years as our Chairman.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), not surprisingly for a Liberal Democrat, made many spending commitments, such as cuts in fuel prices and a jobcentre on every island, amounting to a £2.5 billion increase in spending.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ben Wallace: I am sorry, I do not have the time.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute criticised the Government's extra £1 billion to eradicate poverty, saying that an extra £2.5 billion was needed. As ever, spend, spend, spend from the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made some genuine points, as did the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) in relation to local government and money coming from Westminster. I should tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that we might not like the way in which the block grant is spent, but that is devolution. The Treasury could, if it wished, try different mechanisms to ensure that funding was ring-fenced, but hopefully the electorate will make that judgment at the next election. If the local papers carry headlines about that spending, the SNP administration in Aberdeen will not be in office much longer.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) referred to the fairy tale. I shall merely say that the Scottish National party knows more about fairy tales than Alice in Wonderland, and leave it at that.
	As usual, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) made a robust and frank contribution. He would probably be surprised to know how much I agree with him on many of the issues that he raised. He has at heart the real interests of his constituents, and perhaps one day we will see where we agree.
	We have had a good debate and a long debate, although many might have predicted that it would not go the full time. We all believe in trying to eradicate poverty, no matter what our party allegiance, and no matter what the party of government would like to portray. I went into politics because the soldiers whom I worked with from the Scots Guards, from Bellshill, Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Govan, grew up in poverty and I felt that they deserved better government.

David Cairns: It is an honour to respond to this debate. I thank all who took part; they made important contributions. I was to have had 15 minutes, then 10 minutes, then eight minutes for my speech. Now it turns out that I am allowed 16 minutes, and I shall try to do justice to and respond to some of the important points that have been made.
	Child poverty, the subject of this debate, goes right to the heart of why so many of us came into politics in the first place. It goes right to the heart of why my party came into existence more than 100 years ago and what the Labour Government, elected 11 years ago today, are all about. The struggle against child poverty has consumed generations of campaigners and given birth to countless movements, societies, trade unions and moral crusades. In my party, and in our country, the struggle has been led by titans—people such as John Wheatley, James Maxton, John Smith and, of course, Keir Hardie.
	The desire to eradicate the scourge of child poverty from the land has had no stronger champion than the Prime Minister, who has devoted his entire adult life, with energy and unwavering commitment, to ensuring that every person in this country benefits from the opportunities enjoyed for too long by only a few. In the past 11 years, that drive against poverty has been the constant theme of our politics. It is why we introduced tax credits to help the poorest paid, especially those with children. It is why we raised child benefit above and beyond inflation and why we introduced the first ever national minimum wage—in the teeth of opposition from those who claimed that it would cost 1 million jobs and from those who could not be bothered to get out of bed to vote for it. The drive against poverty is also why we set the extraordinarily ambitious target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eradicating it by 2020.
	That target is no idle boast or vague aspiration, but a commitment made during our long years as the Opposition, when we stood impotent as child poverty doubled in Scotland between the late 1970s and mid-1990s. The results of all that effort—the tax credits, the new deal, the minimum wage—are there for all to see. Ninety thousand children have been lifted out of poverty in Scotland, a greater rate of decline than in the UK as a whole. More people are in work today than at any time in our nation's history. Families in the poorest fifth of the population are £4,500 a year better off.
	Behind every one of those statistics are real people, whose lives have been changed and aspirations raised. Families and communities now have the prospect that tomorrow can be better than yesterday and that years of decline and decay can be reversed. That is why so many of my hon. Friends who spoke this afternoon took the opportunity to remind the House of the progress that has been made; to be fair, Opposition hon. Members also acknowledged that. However, my hon. Friends did something more: they spoke of a genuine, passionate desire to go further, do more and make deeper inroads into the problems that still beset so many of our communities. I share that desire. Our achievements are real, and in some areas progress has been nothing short of remarkable, but much more needs to be done.
	Before I turn to some of the comments made today, I should like to thank those who have made a significant contribution to the debate, inside and outside the Chamber. First and foremost, our thanks go to the Chairman and members of the Scottish Affairs Committee for producing an excellent and thoughtful report. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), the convenor and, ultimately, the author of the report.
	In part, today's debate grew from a round-table discussion, convened by the Scotland Office, that brought together many organisations involved in the day-to-day reality of helping those still affected by poverty. Many of those organisations have taken a great deal of time and effort to draw up detailed briefing papers in order to inform our deliberations better. I would like to add my thanks to Barnado's, the Church of Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice Scotland, NCH and Save the Children. I assure them that their contributions have been studied by the Scotland Office and the Department for Work and Pensions. We shall continue to work with those organisations towards our common goal of eradicating child poverty.
	The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), said that he did not want to talk about the past. I wonder why. He did not make an apology for the fact that child poverty doubled when the Conservatives were in charge, although, in fairness, for much of that time he was in the Social Democratic party, so he does not bear personal responsibility. He spoke about the new Conservative approach of making poverty history. It stands in sharp contrast to their old approach, which was just making poverty. He launched his usual attacks on tax credits, then said he would keep them. He condemned clawbacks, but dodged the chance to set out his views on clawbacks. He attacked the definition of poverty as being 60 per cent. of median income, despite the fact that that is the acknowledged international standard, used around the world and certainly throughout the European Union. The organisations that I mentioned earlier said, in the submissions that they put to us, that we should be working to that standard.
	The hon. Gentleman did not mention the fact that in the document "Making British Poverty History", a new target emerged—not 60 per cent. of median income, but 40 per cent. That is now going to be the aspiration that the Conservative party will address. I think that I hear the sound of goalposts being moved. I think that I hear the sound of targets becoming aspirations. I think that I hear the sound of a Labour Government's definition of poverty at 60 per cent. of median income being downgraded to 40 per cent. I think that I hear the sound of a return to the bad old days. The hon. Gentleman quoted Churchill—another famous convert from Liberalism to Toryism—who also said, "you can rat, but you can't re-rat."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, spoke in detail about his Committee's excellent report on poverty. He said that good progress has been made, and he welcomed the new consensus of all parties, which is welcome, if a little late. None the less, his Committee worked collegiately on the report, and it reached out to all parts of Scotland in making its final recommendations. We have responded to the report. We do not share all of its analysis or accept every one of the recommendations, but we acknowledge the tremendous contribution that the report has made in furthering this important debate.
	I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee because the problem of poverty, which has taken generations to build up, cannot be eradicated overnight, even with 11 years of progress. That is why we are aiming to meet the target in 2020. It is a tough target—an immensely challenging one—and as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly said, external factors are now making that target even more challenging. I shall say a word about that in a moment. However, we are not resiling from it or backtracking. We want to hit those targets in 2010 and 2020, but we know that we will have to work, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said, with the Scottish Administration, non-governmental organisations, charities, faith groups and all of those working in Scotland to eradicate poverty, or we will not hit the target. We cannot do it on our own, and the Select Committee report highlights ways in which we can make definite progress.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) stressed the need for us to work together, and graciously acknowledged that much progress has been made. I am afraid, however, that he fell into the trap that often affects individuals who consider these problems. He piled up more and more spending commitments with no real ability to say how much anything would cost, or to say whether spending much more on administration, which was his solution, would divert money from those who need it in the fight against poverty. It is right that the Department for Work and Pensions has tough efficiency targets. Hon. Members from all parties know that sometimes local jobcentres are asked to make challenging efficiency savings. However, we are doing that so that the massive amount of extra money that goes towards the fight against child poverty gets through to the front line and those who need it most. The hon. Gentleman's vision of a series of super first steps centres in every community, combining Jobcentre Plus and Revenue and Customs functions, was presented without any idea of how much it will cost, let alone how much the Liberal Democrats will pay for it.

Alan Reid: rose—

David Cairns: If the hon. Gentleman is willing to give us that figure now, I shall give way.

Alan Reid: The Minister's description of the policy is at variance with what it actually is. We propose using existing jobcentres, which are half empty because staff have been transferred from them to call centres, and employing staff who can give local advice to local people rather than expecting people to phone a call centre, where local circumstances are not understood.

David Cairns: I think that the hon. Gentleman went further than that in his original contribution. We need to consider what the benefit processing centres do. There is one in Greenock in my constituency. Bringing together benefit processing activities can create greater efficiency, leading to people's benefits being processed much more quickly than when functions are disaggregated throughout the country. It means that money gets to people who need it more quickly. That is why we are making efficiency savings and I do not believe that those who work in the call centres, whom the hon. Gentleman has callously dispatched to the dole queue, perceive their job as having no interest in people's local circumstances. That is grossly unfair.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) made an excellent speech. She reminded us that poverty is not simply about material deprivation—lack of stuff—but the crushing of ambitions and condemning communities to never being able to better themselves, dream that life can be better or aspire to something beyond the circumstances in which they grew up. The crushing of ambition is part and parcel of poverty. Unlocking people's potential and realising their ambitions is as much part of the target to eliminate child poverty as any specific indicator of material deprivation.
	My hon. Friend raised an issue to which many hon. Members reverted during the debate—the age-old quandary between universalism and targeting. It is as old as the welfare state and no Government will ever say that they have completely solved it. However, in the past 11 years, we have been able to increase universal benefit such as child benefit and the winter fuel payment at the same time as increasing targeted benefits such as tax credits and pension credit. We have managed to do both: increase universal benefit and target most help at those who need it most.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil)—

Hon. Members: Very good.

David Cairns: I have been practising. However, I am afraid that that is as good as it gets for the hon. Gentleman. He paid lip service to the issue at hand and moved quickly to the nationalist comfort zone—the consuming obsession with constitutional wrangling, in contrast with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). It is shameful that the First Minister has not found time to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss child poverty, but has found time to write to Robert Mugabe and President Ahmadinejad of Iran, attempting to form some sort of coalition with them.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly said that the current huge external challenges make the targets harder to achieve. That is why we have to keep down inflation and unemployment and avoid the return to boom and bust, which occurred whenever those external shocks happened in the past.
	I regret that I do not have time to go into detail about the important contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
	As I said at the outset, this has been a significant and timely debate. It has involved important contributions from beyond the House, from those on the front line of the campaign against the scourge of poverty. The debate has allowed us to reflect, 11 years to the day after our election, on the tremendous progress that has been made on reducing poverty and tackling low pay. The debate has also given us the opportunity to reflect on what still needs to be done. The Labour party came into being to combat poverty. It is our historic purpose and one to which we are as committed today as we have ever been—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST TAXI DRIVERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Liz Blackman.]

Brian Binley: May I say first how I much appreciated the words of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), who could not be here today? I thought that his apology was most courteous. May I say, too, how nice it is to see the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) sitting in his place? I am more than hopeful that with either of those distinguished parliamentarians I will be kicking at an open door.
	Let me briefly explain the need for the debate. The need is quite apparent, because violent crime against taxi drivers is increasing rather quickly. My seeking this debate was also partly motivated by a horrific case, to which I shall return, in which the taxi driver son-in-law of a constituent of mine was murdered.
	Violent attacks against taxi drivers are of equal concern in all constituencies. That is why I am hopeful of kicking at an open door. The industry is sizeable and employs 340,000 people, including 71,500 hackney cab drivers and more than 250,000 private hire drivers, who are obviously licensed through the licence system. In 2003, the last year for which we have any sensible figures, 650 million taxi journeys were made and £3 billion was spent on fares.
	The trade is facing sizeable issues. I do not want to go into those now; instead, I want to stay with the issue of violence against drivers. The reasons why violence occurs are clear. First, taxi drivers are alone with their customers in their cabs and are therefore highly vulnerable. Secondly, drivers operate at the front line and deal with some emotionally charged and volatile situations. Thirdly, in city and town centres, taxis are the only form of public transport available at antisocial hours. Violence is commonplace on the night shift and has worsened since the introduction of 24-hour drinking. Indeed, taxi drivers' hours are stretched, too, so they are more tired at the most vulnerable times. On average, they worked 12 to 14 hours a day before the extension of many city and town centre pub hours. I am told by Bryan Roland, the editor of  Private Hire and Taxi Monthly, that that has now been extended to between 14 and 18 hours. Taxi drivers are therefore most vulnerable when they are most tired.
	Let us consider the proof of attacks on taxi drivers. As I have said, there has been a rise in attacks and murders throughout the country, involving guns, knives, syringes, ropes, bottles and bricks, as well as the traditional weapons of the fist and the foot. The consequences of those attacks are physical injury, depression, death and a massive hit on drivers' families, which must not be forgotten.
	In 2007, there were 13 murders and 60 serious assaults, as well as more than 1,000 other assaults, and those are just the reported ones. As we all know, many lesser incidents tend not to be reported to the police. There have been 49 murders within the private hire industry over a 15-year period. This year, 120 serious assaults have already been committed. That is double the number of last year, and we are only in May. Incidents of verbal and racist abuse stretch to many thousands. Although one third of taxi drivers are from ethnic minorities, two thirds of those murdered were from that sector of our community. That is of serious concern. The Kapila report in 2004 into racist incidents involving Bury's taxi and private hire drivers highlighted some of the problems. Drivers did not feel supported when they were racially abused; the police were inconsistent in dealing with taxi drivers; and police response times were 40 to 60 minutes. That is a very long time to wait when there has been a serious, violent incident.
	The estimated cost to the nation of investigating the 49 murders, which constitute but a small part of the serious incidents in this area, was £76 million. The cost of each investigation of violence against a person was £3,036. If we add to that the cost of social security and of loss of earnings to the victims, the total cost to the country to date is about £168 million. I know that the Minister would love to have £168 million to pursue her work in her Department. It is a great deal of money.
	Let me give examples of people who have suffered personal injury in recent years. My friend, John Kelly, who is the secretary of the Northampton Hackney Cab Association, was the victim of a serious assault with a hammer in 1997, after which he was hospitalised for four days. That incident caused him to leave the trade for three years, and his spine has been permanently damaged. I pay tribute to him for helping to motivate me to secure this debate. The son-in-law of another of my constituents, Ron Corbett, whom I mentioned in my opening remarks, was murdered during his duties as a taxi driver. He was so struck by that incident that he created Safe Shield, to try to protect other drivers. He, too, helped to motivate me to secure the debate. I hope that he will not mind my paying that tribute to him.
	There have been other incidents. In May 2007, Gian Chand Bajar, aged 70, was murdered in Gravesend, Kent. Colin Winstone, aged 44, who was a father of two, was stabbed in Bristol in 2005. Mohammed Jamil was stabbed in the face, in west Yorkshire, over a £3.50 fare. Mahmood Ahmed was murdered in Keighley two weeks after the birth of his child. Taxi drivers in west Yorkshire staged a seven-hour strike in 2006 after the murder of Mohammad Parvaiz in Golcar. I could give more examples. Those incidents are well known, and I have cited just a few to highlight the importance of the issue.
	Sadly, there has been a lack of parliamentary activity on this issue, although I realise that a body has been set up to look into the matter, and we await its report. In 2005, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked about this issue and was told:
	"No information is available on assaults on taxi drivers".—[ Official Report, 28 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1422W.]
	So, there is a history of concern about the problem, although I am pleased to admit that things are better now.
	In April 2007, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) asked the Department for Transport how much it had spent on reducing crime against taxi drivers. He was told:
	"The Department does not hold any figures on how much is spent on improving safety for taxi drivers by local authorities and other local bodies."—[ Official Report, 16 April 2007; Vol. 459, c. 58W.]
	He was, however, told of a research project to be completed by the end of 2007.
	I, too, wrote to the Department for Transport about this issue last year, and was told that the Government were funding a project into the personal security of private hire vehicle drivers and taxi drivers. My office rang the Department to get a copy of that report, which was due to be finalised at the end of last year. I was told that the project had overrun, but was completed, although no publication date for the report had been set. I was told that an executive summary was available, but the truth of the matter is that I was passed from civil servant to civil servant, to the present Minister and finally to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). It was a ministerial wild goose chase, you might well think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sadly it did not have a happy ending. I was told no, I was not allowed a copy of executive summary, which I found rather odd, given my sustained interest in this matter.
	It is difficult to know the Government's current position, but I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on the basis of the executive copy of the report, which I am sure she will have. The word on the street, however, is that the report does not carry with it the significance that was hoped for by Members who sat on the body that commissioned the report.
	I am aware that local projects are under way and that taxi marshals, sponsored by the police, community groups and local authorities, are operating at some taxi ranks. That is most welcome. They are mainly intended to reduce drunken violence, but have also gone some way to offering protection against attacks at taxi ranks, although whether it has had a massive effect on assaults against drivers is not clear. Those projects on their own are simply not enough; they need greater support from the Government.
	Taxi drivers are exchanging information about troublesome areas and troublesome passengers, which is welcome, and they are making a greater commitment to prosecute. Too often, people do not want to get mixed up in the red tape of prosecution, but they should be encouraged to do so in this particular area. Eastbourne provides a good example of such a scheme.
	CCTV is a vital part of the defence process and is becoming more clearly accepted as such. A number of trials are going on throughout the country, including one in Rugby this year. Let me provide an example of the impact that CCTV can have. In Sheffield a year ago last Christmas, a 500-strong taxi firm suffered 400 incidents of violence and abuse between December and the new year—a frightening number of incidents for a single-town or single-city taxi firm. The firm was so worried that it paid for in-car cameras that recorded in an encrypted fashion. This year, only six such problems occurred—a massive result, showing that we need to spread round more information about what happened.
	I said that the cameras were encrypted, which is important, because we Members all have friends who might pay more than particular attention to their partners in taxi cabs. The last thing that we would want is for those friends to be placed in an embarrassing position. It is worth making the point that the encryption can be opened only by police or the magistrates court when an incident has been reported, so it cannot be used to provide the sort of television programmes provided by the police that we see from time to time.
	There are problems, however. The units cost between £700 and £1,000 a car, and we know that most taxi drivers are self-employed and do not have that sort of capital. I am told that the cost of production is only £80 and that the rest is maintenance and back-up. Perhaps the Government could look further into that, given that it has proved to be such a massive aid.
	I could go on. The question of shields is relevant to the matter. On Monday this week, the professional drivers branch of the GMB union organised a rally, which was attended by thousands of drivers, who spoke to Members of Parliament. They asked for Government incentives for safety measures through the local licensing authorities; for CCTV to be fitted into vehicles; for proper training to be given to drivers, such as nationally recognised NVQs that are portable between areas; for a more sensible sentencing regime; and for the police to record attacks on taxi and private hire drivers as a separate category. I seek similar commitment from the Government today, as well as a publication date for their research project, which would be useful.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. I hope that I have made the case for a more serious and unified programme of action. I have the feeling that the problem is not being properly recognised by Government, but I hope to hear differently this evening. Taxi drivers make a massive contribution to public transport in this country, usually in those hours when most sensible citizens have taken to their bed. They and their families collectively pay a sizeable price to make that contribution. We owe them more protection, help, encouragement and training, and greater understanding of their plight. I hope that the Minister can respond to me with serious encouragement in all those areas.

Anne McGuire: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) on securing this debate on an important matter, not only for people employed as taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, but for all of us who are, as he clearly indicated, concerned with the safety of transport workers. Obviously, this is to a certain extent a health and safety at work issue. The Department for Work and Pensions takes a keen interest in the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, although, as he pointed out, the Department for Transport leads on these matters within Government.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, many Members of Parliament have shown a keen interest in this matter, and several spoke at a GMB union rally on Monday to support its campaign to draw attention to the serious safety issues affecting drivers. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to his constituents who have suffered violence as taxi drivers, or whose relatives have suffered such violence. As he said, they encouraged him to seek the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bryan Roland, who, he might be interested to know, was part of the Department for Transport's research study group. I place on record our thanks to him and his colleagues for their help in formulating the report.
	The taxi and private hire trades provide an invaluable means of transport for thousands of individuals. Astonishingly, millions of journeys are made every year by taxi. Taxis might be used by an older person in an isolated village making their weekly shop in a market town, a commuter returning home after arriving at a railway station late at night, or night clubbers wanting a safe ride home. Rather like the hon. Gentleman, I have used taxis in nearly all those situations, although not in the first one—yet.
	Unfortunately, as with too many people who serve the public, taxi and private hire drivers are too often undervalued by the very people they serve. That can lead merely to rather casual dismissive behaviour by people, who treat drivers as almost invisible. Unfortunately —and far too often, as the hon. Gentleman indicated—it can lead to something worse. The reports that we have seen in the past few days, and which appear month after month in the trade press, about attacks on drivers, are far too depressingly familiar. Each report means that a driver and his or her family will have been deeply affected, sometimes in a most traumatic way, particularly in case of severe violence and death.
	The level of violence reported against private hire and taxi drivers is deeply worrying, and we share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It goes without saying that verbal and physical assaults on drivers are totally unacceptable. Drivers have every right to work in a safe environment. The Government take very seriously any assault on front-line transport staff, and that is just as true for taxi drivers as it is for train and bus drivers, or other any transport worker going about their job. That is why we very much welcome the recent Sentencing Guidelines Council advice that assaults on transport workers, among others, cause harm to the individual and to the wider community. The council's view is that the sentence handed down by the courts should reflect that point.
	The Government recognise the concerns of drivers about their safety, and we are taking action to help to address those concerns. That is why, for the first time, we have undertaken national research to investigate the personal security problems that most concern and affect taxi and private hire drivers, with the help of trade associations, trade unions and drivers themselves. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the report, and I can advise him that it will be published shortly, linking in to the analysis and research that has been done. The research has been received by the Department for Transport, but there still needs to be some consultation with stakeholders, taxi drivers and trade unions. Any guidelines that result from this must have credibility with the industry. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration about what he feels is an inordinate delay, but we think this process is important, so anything that comes out of the research must be well proofed with the taxi drivers and private hire industry.
	It is increasingly clear that taxi drivers have to put up with a great deal while carrying out their jobs, including verbal and physical abuse, which many drivers feel is due to a lack of respect. There is significant under-reporting of incidents to the police, particularly in relation to bilking. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but he will know that bilking is what happens when a passenger runs off without paying. Incidents are rarely reported to the police, yet we know that to be one of the most common problems for today's drivers. Verbal abuse is a common occurrence, not only from passengers but from other road users and pedestrians. Unfortunately, too often the verbal abuse of minority ethnic drivers is also racist. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman highlighted that. As he said, the statistics for violence against drivers from the black and minority ethnic community are significantly higher than for the other drivers out there on the road. It is a sad fact of life that many drivers are almost resigned to seeing abuse as "part of the job". That should definitely not be the case.
	Police data do not automatically identify a victim of violent incidents or robbery as a taxi or private hire driver. That means that we do not have national data on the number of such incidents. However, local and regional data are available to give us a partial understanding of the regularity of such incidents. For example, an analysis of three years of recorded crime data on offences against drivers in west Yorkshire shows that there are, on average, 10 to 20 assaults a month—quite a figure. Many, but not all, violent incidents are alcohol-related and occur at night. Some of the attacks are premeditated and planned.
	The most serious incidents are already reported to the police, but I would, through this debate, encourage all those in the taxi and private hire trades to report all other incidents to the local police and appropriate local community safety forums. There are examples of initiatives to encourage such reporting, including of racially motivated and hate crime, to make the reporting procedure easy and accessible, and minimise its length. By building up a more accurate picture, the authorities will be able to monitor the incidents being experienced by the trade. I hope that local police, licensing authorities and others will be able to target their responses appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned in-vehicle CCTV and driver shields. Those can have a useful role to play in driver security, and they are currently in use in a number of vehicles. Local authorities can choose to fund in-vehicle CCTV as part of their wider work in protecting workers and members of the public, particularly through community safety partnership funding.
	Following on from the results of our research, as I said earlier, we will publish guidance to drivers on how to stay safe later this year, and we will also try to raise trade and police awareness of the legal position on bilking. In addition, we will be working to raise awareness among crime and disorder reduction partnerships about the need to engage with the trade to address crime and disorder affecting transport operators, and about the benefit to be derived from that.
	The Department's best practice guidance urged licensing authorities to look sympathetically on, and actively to encourage, the installation of security features. We are now embarking on a revision of the guidance, and will consult on that revision before publication. Our consultation will, of course, include representatives from the taxi and private hire vehicle trade, and we certainly welcome their input.
	It is essential that the trade, licensing authorities and other local partners work together on this issue. Taxi and private hire drivers are often seen as the "eyes and ears" of the local community. If we value them as such, they should be treated with respect, and given appropriate help so that they can carry out their valuable duties in safety.
	We are committed to improving the personal security of transport staff, including taxi and private hire drivers. Assaults on taxi drivers are totally unacceptable, and as I said earlier, taxi drivers have the right to work in a safe environment. It is important to consider how we maintain their safety, and the Department for Transport looks forward to further work with the trade, the police and the Home Office on this important issue. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, South for raising this matter.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock.